From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15855 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 15:28:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 15846 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 15:28:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:28:53 +0000 Received: from kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.79]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o2IFSkTj008963 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:28:47 -0700 Received: from wwc33 (wwc33.prod.google.com [10.241.241.161]) by kpbe15.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o2IFSPqR023453 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:28:45 -0700 Received: by wwc33 with SMTP id 33so1077631wwc.21 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:28:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.85.2 with SMTP id t2mr1465804wee.172.1268926122350; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <11611.203.63.255.139.1268879984.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Getting pissed off by gdb. Please help with stepping in. From: Doug Evans To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: temp@sourceboost.com, gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > The behaviour Pavel describes in his message, but which I do not see, is = this: > > (gdb) f > #0 =A0bar () at stepout.c:4 > 4 =A0 =A0 =A0 int bar () { return 1; } > (gdb) s > main () at stepout.c:12 > 12 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0return 0; > (gdb) > > Note that we've stepped out of bar, into foo, and back out of foo. Although ... Pavel wrote: > [...] My step out of 'bar' command caused > call to 'foo' to execute as well. But I just wanted to step out of 'bar' > but not have 'foo' executed yet. could instead mean that we've stepped into foo, i.e. gdb's current behaviour. Heh. Still, I've also tripped over doing a step at the end of a function and ended up not back in the caller, but in another subroutine - and wish that hadn't happened.