Re: What should "finish" do?

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

"Peter.Schauer" wrote:
> 
> > As I see it, there are two sensible options:
> >
> >     1) "finish" should finish executing the current function and cause
> >        execution to stop when control is returned to the caller (at the
> >        earliest point).
> >
> >     2) "finish" should finish executing the current function and cause
> >        execution to stop when control is returned to the caller, but
> >        after whatever (architecture specific, perhaps even compiler
> >        specific) instructions are used to restore the caller-save
> >        registers.
> >
> > Note that stopping at the next line is not a sensible option because
> > if you finish out of g() in f(g()), it is an error to stop execution
> > at the next line.  I.e, you want to have the opportunity to step into
> > f().
> 
> And we are interested in the return value of g(), which might already
> be clobbered if we stop in the next line.
> I'd favor 2) as well, but I suspect that it will add extra hair for some
> targets.

It will definitly be hard (once -O is applied).  Compilers like to
forget to cleanup stack frames so walking the unwind instructions could
end up as hairy as the code that skips the prologue.

(But I agree, it is more correct).

	Andrew