Re: [RFC] stept, nextt, finisht, untilt, continuet

[Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> My original post was that I believe the new `*t' commands were invented more
> because `set scheduler-locking step' is not default+working. ?I guess such
> idea would not arise at all otherwise. ?Any new configuration options and/or
> more commands are bad when the same functionality can be reached otherwise.

My patch is partially because "set scheduler-locking step" doesn't
apply to next,
but it also doesn't apply to other commands.

*And* at least as importantly, if not more so, I don't always want
"set scheduler-locking step",
and having to remember to switch global state back and forth is
extremely clumsy!  Blech.
In my sessions the setting of scheduler-locking is far more dynamic, a
global state setting is the wrong solution.

I kinda like adding a new option to step,next,etc., but writing
wrappers in python doesn't add new commands to gdb proper.
One of the reasons we have python.