Re: [RFA] 'set step-mode' to control the step command.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>]

> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:56:05 -0500
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
> 
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 05:03:32PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >So, I will submit a revised patch with a enum'ized step_over_calls but keep
> >the step_stop_if_no_debug, if that is ok.
> 
> And, here it is.  There were no regressions with this patch.
> 
> I haven't added a test suite entry for this but it is coming.
> 
> Is this ok?
[snip]
> Index: doc/gdb.texinfo
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/uberbaum/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v

The changes to the docs are approved, but please correct these minor
problems:

> +When stepping over functions, cause gdb to stop at the first instruction
> +of a function which contains no debug line information.

Please use "@value{GDBN}" instead of literal "gdb", everywhere in the
new text.

> +
> +@itemx set step-mode off

This should be @item, not @itemx.

Also, @cindex entries about this would be nice, I think.  For example:

  @cindex functions without line info, and stepping
  @cindex stepping into functions with no line info

Finally, wouldn't it be better to tell explicitly in what situation
this feature is likely to be useful, and what would the user typically
want to do when the debuggee stops in a function without debug info?
I mean, I can guess the answers, but I'm not sure an average user
would.