This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Regressions problem (200 failures)


At 12:43 02/03/00 +0100, Peter.Schauer wrote:
>>     Peter> For practical debugging purposes (especially C++), the line
>>     Peter> number information (and thus the breakpoint) has to be put
>>     Peter> before the initialization code for local variables, so that
>>     Peter> we can debug object initialization.
>> 
>> But the line number itself doesn't have to indicate the `{'; it could
>> indicate the next line, if that's what GDB wants.  This is more
>> possible than it used to be since the C++ front-end now puts out whole
>> functions at once, rather than processing a statement at a time.
>> 
>> Still, it's non-trivial.
>
>>From a pure user perspective (for now not considering implementation
problems 
>with GCC or GDB), a breakpoint on the opening brace is not what I want,
>as I will almost always have to step over it.
>I'd expect a breakpoint on the first local variable that needs initalization,
>or the first statement.

  I don't agree here !
  If your breakpoint stop on the open brace (or the begin statement for the
pascal extension
I want to submit)
  you get the choice to use either:

  "Step" if you want to debug the function initialization code
or
  "Next" if you don't want to !

  That's really just a matter of taste...
but if the function breakpoint is only set after the hidden initialization 
it will get very difficult to debug that code (you will not be able to 
set an explicit breakpoint there !)




Pierre Muller
Institut Charles Sadron
6,rue Boussingault
F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France)
mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07  Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]