From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-39597-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 15295 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2011 22:58:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 15283 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2011 22:58:19 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:58:04 +0000
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p72Mw1PH026492	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:58:01 -0400
Received: from psique ([10.3.112.5])	by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p72Mvu3v017534;	Tue, 2 Aug 2011 18:57:58 -0400
From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
To: "Amker.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, hellogcc@freelists.org
Subject: Re: behavior of hook-stop command
References: <CAHFci296i+6EGPL45Gx0LYtQ7F-eg0QCR+cQeVaAo7k6Z_uFsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:58:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <CAHFci296i+6EGPL45Gx0LYtQ7F-eg0QCR+cQeVaAo7k6Z_uFsQ@mail.gmail.com>	(Amker Cheng's message of "Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:44:23 +0800")
Message-ID: <m37h6ve80c.fsf@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2

Hi Amker,

"Amker.Cheng" <amker.cheng@gmail.com> writes:

> In gdb document, it is said hook-stop makes the associated commands
> execute every time execution stops in your program.
>
> while for cases where continue command included in hook-stop, it's not true.

[...]

> I understand hook_in is essential to prevent gdb from possible
> recursion and seems hard
> to change the behavior within current infrastructure.
> Is this a bug? Should we state this in GDB document?

I believe it could be treated as a bug.  I'm not sure if this will be
fixed on the code, or on the documentation, but either way I suggest you
to open a bug in GDB bugzilla, please:

   http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/

Thanks,

Sergio.