This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: fullname descriptor with -break-list
- From: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 20:22:14 +1300
- Subject: Re: fullname descriptor with -break-list
- References: <16902.30786.705993.121669@farnswood.snap.net.nz><20050206210637.GB19609@white><16902.45534.858929.941689@farnswood.snap.net.nz><20050207134829.GA21985@white><420787A3.2070605@gnu.org>
> >>-exec-run
> >>^running
> >>(gdb)
> >>*stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit",bkptno="1",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x080486e2",func="myprint",args=[{name="i",value="0"},{name="j",value="0"}],file="myprint.c",line="5"}
...
> The way that message is generated is a massive kludge - so the
> underlying code could do with a cleanup - separate the code determining
> why the process stopped from the code printing the stop reason.
Just a short note for the future:
As *stopped is asynchronous output and not that of a specific MI command, I
also think this output should appear even if a CLI command has been invoked.
Currently a GDB session might look like:
&"b main\n"
~"Breakpoint 1 at 0x80484cf: file myprog.c, line 48.\n"
^done
(gdb)
run
&"run\n"
~"Starting program: /home/nick/myprog \n"
~"\n"
~"Breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=0xbffff794) at myprog.c:48\n"
~"48\t int i, n, m[10]={0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81};\n"
^done
(gdb)
but I think it should look something like:
&"b main\n"
~"Breakpoint 1 at 0x80484cf: file myprog.c, line 48.\n"
^done
(gdb)
run
&"run\n"
~"Starting program: /home/nick/myprog \n"
~"\n"
~"Breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=0xbffff794) at myprog.c:48\n"
~"48\t int i, n, m[10]={0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81};\n"
^done
(gdb)
*stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit",bkptno="1",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x080484cf",func="main",args=[{name="argc",value="1"},{name="argv",value="0xbffff794"}],file="myprog.c",line="48"}
(gdb)
or with "-interpreter-exec console run" if direct CLI is going to be removed.
>From Emacs point of view, this would mean the CLI commands could be entered in
the GUD buffer.
Nick