This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:38:25 -0600
- Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command
mec> So we might need additional promises.
mec> I think it would be reasonable for us to ask for them if we decide
mec> we need them.
drow> I don't. Promises don't mean anything; we have existing code.
A promise in a manual is a contract. If gcc violates its contract,
then gcc is at fault, and we can file bug reports against it. That's
what I'm getting at.
mec> If we are in foo:67, and the user asks to 'until 70',
mec> then I bet we can figure out that '70' is in the current function no
mec> matter where its object code addresses are.
drow> No, we can't. It's a pretty fundamental rule that we can never do
drow> anything except display source lines. Consider code re-organization,
drow> templates, macros, #line directives...
Okay, I am naive here. I see a DW_TAG_subprogram for each function
with a DW_AT_decl_line. Can't we use that information to build a table
that maps source line #'s to function names?
But you know much more about this area then I do so if you are gloomy,
I have to be gloomy, too.