From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17764 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2003 20:19:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17757 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 20:19:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2003 20:19:25 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 196Fqs-0002MS-00; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:19:23 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 196Fqf-00010W-00; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:19:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Matt Thomas Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: breakpoint commands and finish Message-ID: <20030417201909.GA2867@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Matt Thomas , Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <5.1.1.6.2.20030414135022.04175790@3am-software.com> <5.1.1.6.2.20030417114351.04b179c0@3am-software.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030417114351.04b179c0@3am-software.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 11:47:23AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote: > At 10:47 AM 4/17/2003, Michael Snyder wrote: > >Matt Thomas wrote: > >> > >> What should be the behavour of the following? > >> > >> break function > >> commands > >> finish > >> continue > >> end > >> > >> Should finish cause gdb to stop and wait for a prompt > >> or should gdb act on the continue? (gdb5.x does the > >> former while gdb4.x did the latter) > > > >Consistant with your observations, the traditional behavior > >has been that gdb would stop and prompt for a new command. > >I believe that recently someone has changed it so that it > >would at least try to execute the finish and the continue. > > Well, I just rebuilt gdb from the latest on sources.redhat.com > and the behavior is unchanged. > > I was wondering (as an alternative) whether it would be possible > to get a variant of the break command which would place a breakpoint > at the return of a function (and print the return value like finish > does). > > rbreak (or ebreak). I find I often was to place a breakpoint at the > end of a function; it'd be nice if gdb could do that automaticly. It's too darned hard :) Debug info does not represent the exit point of the function. It's not always at the end; modern gcc's can emit multiple exit edges, too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer