This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: 'finish' command on ppc64
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Edjunior Barbosa Machado <emachado at br dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:24:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: 'finish' command on ppc64
- References: <4CD7E89D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:10:05 +0100, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote:
> So, I'd like to know if there is any rule regarding of which line of code
> should be pointed after issue a 'finish' command. Should be always one line
> after the subroutine call? Is this behavior considered a bug or it's just
> working as expected?
It was discussed at:
Re: [FYI] Inlining support, rough patch
with some Fedora patch (later dropped) so that after `finish' GDB would
_always_ stay at the caller line.
Currently testcases expect both cases:
# Some architectures will have one or more instructions after the
# call instruction which still is part of the call sequence, so we
# must be prepared for a "finish" to show us the void_func call
# again as well as the statement after.