From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25831 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2014 22:59:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 25819 invoked by uid 89); 5 Oct 2014 22:59:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ig0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-ig0-f170.google.com) (209.85.213.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 22:59:45 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l13so4276981iga.3 for ; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:59:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.23.16 with SMTP id q16mr29987293icb.0.1412549983802; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.167.74 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 15:59:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 22:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: How step over a ass call command? From: Peng Yu To: "gdb@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Max Filippov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Peng Yu wrote: >> Suppose that I use gdb with a binary file with source stripped. >> >> 0x1ea7 : mov %eax,(%esp) >> 0x1eaa : call 0x1f14 >> 0x1eaf : mov 0x1180(%ebx),%ecx >> >> Suppose that pc is at 0x1ea7 and I want to step 2 instructions to >> 0x1eaf and without stopping inside call 0x1f14. "stepi" does not seem >> to work in this case (my guess is that it only works with source code >> for skipping function calls, but not at the assembly level.) >> >> Does anybody know what is the best way to get to the line 0x1eaf? (I >> could set a breakpoint at 0x1eaf, but I found this is too cumbersome.) > > Try nexti, which is defined as > Execute one machine instruction, but if it is a function call, proceed > until the function returns I am sorry. I meant to say "nexti" in my original email. "nexti" seems to the same as "stepi" when the source code is stripped. Is it supposed to be so? -- Regards, Peng