From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26348 invoked by alias); 13 May 2011 07:51:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 26336 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2011 07:51:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:51:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4D7p4Lh004989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 13 May 2011 03:51:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4D7p2ei022542; Fri, 13 May 2011 03:51:02 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: Doug Evans Cc: Kevin Pouget , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Python Finish Breakpoints References: Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Thu, 12 May 2011 12:00:11 -0700") Message-ID: 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 Doug Evans writes: > So first let me ask a clarifying question: Is the main purpose for the > patch to provide robust handling of the different ways an inferior > function call can "exit"? > And if so, maybe (or maybe not, dunno) it would be better to focus on > making that work as desired, as opposed to a general purpose > finish-frame breakpoint handler. > The latter may be sufficiently useful as well of course. At this > point I'd just like to understand the main use-case. Pretty much just agreeing with what you said, but with a distinction. Inferior function calls are so transparent in GDB that it can happen even if we explicitly exclude the case for these breakpoints (IE, inferior function calls are a special case which would be ignored). As inferior function calls can happen in watchpoint expressions, or in conditional breakpoints, the C++ exception example can happen there, anyway. We can exclude the watchpoint case by disallowing them in the finish breakpoint. But even so, with the attaching of conditions to a breakpoint, will the breakpoint 'know' that GDB has done some magic re-shuffling with the inferior? Anyway, tests will tell this story better than my word-craft ;) I am all for this functionality, as long as we don't leave the Python script confused about 'what just happened'. Cheers, Phil