From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11581 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2002 17:25:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11419 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2002 17:25:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mandy.eunet.fi) (193.66.1.129) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Feb 2002 17:25:05 -0000 Received: from alphatux2.ts.ray.fi (ws-002.ray.fi [193.64.14.2]) by mandy.eunet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31492A246 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:25:04 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jd@ts.ray.fi) Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:25:00 -0000 From: Iso-H To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb-5.x and step over inline functions In-Reply-To: <20020224114008.B8162@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 03:14:00PM +0200, Iso-H wrote: > > > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Iso-H wrote: > > > > > > > Is there any way to step over inline functions > > > > when using gdb >= 5.1 ? Some (commandline or other)option > > > > perhaps? > > > > > > Doesn't `until' do that? That is, given that line 123 calls an inline > > > function, and line 124 is the one after the inline function returns, you > > > should be able to say "until 124" and get what you want. Does that work? > > > > It isn't same; for example if I want to say: "list f_MyFunction" > > and if there is (==beginning of "f_MyFunction") some objects > > which have inline constructors I get list of those constructor(s) > > NOT list of "f_MyFunction" as I expected/wanted. Besides, > > I have to check what is the line number from source code by editor > > because gdb can't show that line to me. > > > > Same goes with "next"; if I set breakpoint: "b f_MyFunction" > > I don't get what I want, because I end up to inside of those > > f*king inline constructor(s) again when breakpoint is reached! > > > > All this works with gdb-5.0, so gdb-5.1.x behaves > > differently here... > > Could you provide a small testcase, with source and a compile > commandline? By small I also mean including no system headers. I'll > try to see what has changed. It seems to be so that it is difficult to create just simple "demo", but I'll try... > > -- Iso-H