From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29635 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2003 21:44:11 -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 29628 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2003 21:44:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2003 21:44:11 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 196HB4-0002Xg-00; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:44:18 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 196HAr-0001Rs-00; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:44:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: Matt Thomas , Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: breakpoint commands and finish Message-ID: <20030417214405.GA4468@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , 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> <20030417201909.GA2867@nevyn.them.org> <16031.4562.644834.479261@casey.transmeta.com> <20030417204953.GA26080@nevyn.them.org> <16031.6671.349328.837129@casey.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16031.6671.349328.837129@casey.transmeta.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:18:07PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > The macro facility isn't, but a command could be added to do this > > without much trouble. > > For my own education, what's missing? A way to get at the return address in a convenience variable. > > I would rather us discuss the semantics of > > commands lists containing commands which resume the inferior. There > > must be a more user-useful way to approach it than we do now. > > What if you allowed multiple "resume" commands in the "top level" > breakpoint only, and allowed "nested" breakpoints only if they > either stopped execution (in which case execution stops) or if > the only "resume" they did was a tail-call-like continue. > If a nested breakpoint's command list does a resumption with a > non-tail-continue, execution stops. That might do it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer