This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint
- From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Marc Khouzam" <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>
- Cc: "teawater" <teawater at gmail dot com>, "Daniel Jacobowitz" <drow at false dot org>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, "Pedro Alves" <pedro at codesourcery dot com>, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder at vmware dot com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:41:31 +0300
- Subject: Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint
- References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06CB0F19@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <daef60380902051930n4cc495bq1a7ccb9321ba1d3@mail.gmail.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF70@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
On Friday 06 February 2009 10:45:49 Marc Khouzam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think you need two proceed().
> This is because reverse-finish first sets a bp
> at the method we want to 'finish' out of, and then
> it does a single step backwards. So, it looks like
> it needs this double proceed.
This proves that the target should be resumed twice. It does not prove that
a function called proceed() should be called twice nor that a function called
normal_stop should be called twice.
- Volodya