[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[cam at mcc dot id.au]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

Cameron McCormack <cam at mcc dot id.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cam at mcc dot id.au

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[tromey at redhat dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

Bug 8287 depends on bug 11614, which changed state.

Bug 11614 Summary: decode_variable() in linespec.c does not obey its contract
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11614

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[tromey at redhat dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tromey at redhat dot com

--- Comment #16 from Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> 2011-10-05 15:19:58 UTC ---
See this thread:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/msg00417.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[tromey at redhat dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |7.4

--- Comment #17 from Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> 2011-11-08 17:12:25 UTC ---
Fixed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[richardg.work at gmail dot com]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

Richard Geary <richardg.work at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |richardg.work at gmail dot com

--- Comment #18 from Richard Geary <richardg.work at gmail dot com> ---
For the benefit of future users, this is now called "skip" not "blacklist". To
use this feature, see "help skip".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com  2010-05-22 20:58 -------
Created an attachment (id=4810)
 --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4810&action=view)
Patch v1

This patch has a few minor outstanding details, marked with TODOs in the code. 
In particular, the breakpoint code has some special-casing for Objective-C that
I don't understand but I may want to emulate in this patch, and there are two
error conditions that I'm not sure how to exercise with a testcase.  Any input
on these issues would be appreciated.

I don't handle blacklisting files or functions using regular expressions in
this patch, but I'd be happy to work on that after we're satisfied with what I
have here.

This is my first gdb patch; please be gentle.  :)

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at sourceware dot|justin dot lebar+gdb at
                   |org                         |gmail dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |11614


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[pedro at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com  2010-05-07 19:24 -------
I think you'd be able to extract/abstract any necessary bits from
the "rbreak" implementation.  See symtab.c:rbreak_command, and 
symtab.c:search_symbols.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[pedro at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com  2010-05-07 19:00 -------
To filter on a specific template instantiation type, namespaces, be able to
filter function overloads, etc.  Why design something that is limited upfront,
when it's pretty much guaranteed users will want more flexibility?

I'm not convinced that regexps necessarily complicates the
implementation.  We have other regexp uses in gdb already.

Also, I think we should be able to filter a whole directory,
in addition to individual files.  It doesn't have to be implemented in
the first patch, of course, may it should be kept in mind not to make
it impossible to extend in the direction.

Visual Studio's implementation seems quite nice, in that it allows
a NoStepInto and StepInto override each other depending on priority
(or position in list).  Sort of feels like a ClearCase config spec
(not that I like ClearCase, mind you :-) ).


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com  2010-05-07 04:35 -------
Also, I'm not convinced that full-on regexps are necessary.  Matching either a
string or a string followed by any sequence of characters (i.e. allowing 'foo'
and 'foo*' but not 'foo*bar' as blacklist function filters) would work for
templates.  Is there any other reason to have something more complicated here?

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com  2010-05-06 19:23 -------
> I don't have one either, but I have google.

Fair enough.  VS apparently also has an "only my code" option, which is
presumably file-based.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[pedro at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com  2010-05-06 18:34 -------
I don't have one either, but I have google.  E.g.,:
http://www.cprogramming.com/debugging/visual-studio-msvc-debugging-NoStepInto.html


-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com  2010-05-06 18:26 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Did you take a look at how other debuggers implement this?  E.g., the
> ubiquitous Visual Studio uses flexible regexps, as the OP suggested.

I don't have a copy of VS in front of me right now; do you know if it lets you
blacklist a whole file?

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[pedro at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com  2010-05-06 18:06 -------
IMO, this should be a separate list from breakpoints.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[pedro at codesourcery dot com]

------- Additional Comments From pedro at codesourcery dot com  2010-05-06 18:02 -------
Did you take a look at how other debuggers implement this?  E.g., the
ubiquitous Visual Studio uses flexible regexps, as the OP suggested.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com  2010-05-06 17:45 -------
I have a patch which lets you blacklist files and functions.  GDB won't step
into a blacklisted file or function.

I'd like some advice on the UI for this, though, so I don't have to write it twice.

In particular, the blacklist is a lot like the list of breakpoints.  You want to
do to blacklist entries basically everything you can do to breakpoints: list,
enable, disable, delete.  This suggests that blacklist entries should perhaps be
a type of breakpoint.

On the other hand, a blacklist entry is exactly the opposite of a breakpoint.  A
breakpoint/watchpoint/tracepoint says "I'm interested in this", but a blacklist
entry means "I want to ignore this".  This suggests that we should keep the
blacklist separate from the list of breakpoints.

I'm leaning towards making the blacklist separate from the breakpoint list, but
I'm happy to do it either way.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com  2010-05-01 08:21 -------
I'm working on a patch for this.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[dje at google dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dje at google dot com  2010-02-23 18:29 -------
Or maybe provide a way to step into function calls, bypassing any function calls
that set up arguments.  I've called this "fstep".

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From justin dot lebar+gdb at gmail dot com  2010-02-11 19:16 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> So I guess
> this hypothetical ignore list should be a list of
> regexps instead of just a list of names to match exactly.

It might be simpler to specify that gdb should step through all functions in a
given file, although that's obviously inflexible.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[tromey at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat dot com  2010-02-11 17:54 -------
*** Bug 11117 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |justin dot lebar+gdb at
                   |                            |gmail dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug cli/8287] skipping boring functions when stepping

[tromey at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat dot com  2010-02-11 17:54 -------
*** Bug 8661 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |esp5 at pge dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8287

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.