Re: [RFA] Testsuite addition for x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM fix

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 05:21:26PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > W.r.t. the tests for HP and IA64 I sincerely regret that we do not
> > have two commands: "finishi" and "finish".  The current behavior of
> > "finish" (stop at the assembler instruction after the call) is very
> > unsettling for someone who is doing source level debugging -- in this
> > case it should, after returning, single step until the end of the
> > sourceline where the call is ("if it is not at the beginning of a
> > source line after the return, single step to the end of it" would
> > do).
> 
> I think that the current behavior of finish, while awkward, is better
> than what you're suggesting here.  Suppose we have:
>   foo (bar (x));
> and we want to step in to foo.  There's two ways to do it; a breakpoint
> on foo, or step - finish - step. 

The breakpoint is the correct way.  The latter is an artifact.

> Stepping in to bar, typing finish,
> and ending up after the call to foo would be exceedingly non-intuitive.
> 

This is true. But a finish would not stop after the call to foo() in this case.  The stepping would be aborted as we entered foo() itself (note that I said "step", not "next").  The result is quite intuitive in this case and you just provided one good example of how we could use it -- one could go "finish"-ing until the desired function was entered (without the need to step again and without the weird thing of appearing to stop at the same line you were before).



-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9