This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command


Michael Snyder writes:

 > >  > > > I don't think there is a way to have both behaviors work correctly.  I
 > >  > > > thought of checking that the pc which you want to run until is in
 > >  > > > the same function as the one of the selected frame, and in that case
 > >  > > > enforce the check (by using a non-null frame for the bp_until),
 > >  > > > otherwise use the null frame (which disables the check). But what would
 > >  > > > be the correct behavior if you say:
 > >  > > >
 > >  > > > "until bar" where bar is recursive, and you are in "bar" at the
 > >  > > > moment?  This doesn't work currently. It seems intuitive that you
 > >  > > > would stop the next time you enter "bar". Right now you end up at the
 > >  > > > caller of "bar".
 > >  > > >
 > 

 > I agree, but maybe we can distinguish between "a location inside the
 > current function" and "a location outside the current function".
 > After all, a line is not a meaningful distinction -- it could be a
 > line inside another function.
 > 
 > So I suggest using find_pc_partial_function to find the bounds
 > of the current function.  If <location> is inside, we use a 
 > frame-relative breakpoint.  If it's outside, we don't.
 > 
 > Wouldn't that satisfy the issue that you're working on?

See the above, in this very same thread. :-) I tried this yesterday,
but I ran into a corner case. If we decide what to do in this corner
case, we should be ok.

Elena

 > 
 > Michael


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]