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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 04:57:00PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 03:53:22PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > > Elena Zannoni wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This fixes the problem reported in:
> > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-11/msg00144.html
> > > > >
> > > > > testsuite patch coming
> > > >
> > > > Elena, can you sum up in a sentence or two, what this change
> > > > is intended to do?
> > >
> > > [Since I happen to be reading email right now, I'll do a sketchy
> > > imitation.]
> > >
> > > The problem is that we were marking the breakpoint on the
> > > user-specified line with the current frame.  But when we hit that
> > > breakpoint, if it's in a different function, it will have a different
> > > frame.  Right now we see that the frames don't match and resume
> > > executing.
> > >
> > > Oops.
> >
> > OK, thanks.  But we _need_ to mark the breakpoint with the current
> > frame, because if the breakpoint is in the current frame, we don't
> > want to stop in an inner recursive call, ie. not until the current
> > frame hits the breakpoint.
> >
> > So this needs further consideration, and I don't think it can
> > be approved as is.
> 
> OK.  Is that really what you expect "until" to do, though?  I'd be
> pretty surprised if an inner function call executed that line without
> stopping.

Nevertheless, that is and has always been the intent.
If you're in factorial(5), and you say "until 100", 
you don't stop until line 100 is hit by factorial(5).