On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:05:00PM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >>> There a non-transparent change in behavior that may affect some users. >>> The inline functions will introduce additional lines in a sequence of >>> gdb 'step' commands. Use 'next' instead. >> >> That is IMHO a serious obstackle. If anything, the inlines should >> use always_inline, artificial attributes, but don't know if GDB treats them >> already specially and doesn't step into them with step. >> Also, I'm afraid it will significantly grow cc1plus/cc1 debug info. >> >> The .gdbinit macro redefinition Paolo posted sounds to be a better approach. > > Yeah, I already see me typing s<return>finish<return> gazillion of times when > trying to step into a function call that produces a function argument > ... there is > already the very very very annoying tree_code_length function that you get for > each TREE_OPERAND (...) macro on function arguments. I'd be very opposed > to any change that makes this situation worse.
tree_operand_length actually. Please produce a patch that makes this function transparent to gdb, then I might be convinced converting the other macros to such function might be worthwhile. Thanks, Richard. > Richard. > >> Jakub >> >
