[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Anyone relying on "break-at" breakpoints?
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Anyone relying on "break-at" breakpoints? |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:10:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Neil,
Disclaimer: I'm not too familiar with the debugging infrastructure and
I've never used `break-at'. But...
Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
> By way of contrast, the other kind of breakpoint ("break-in") does not
> suffer from this problem, because it is defined in a way that relates
> more persistently to the code (even as the code changes). A break-in
> breakpoint is defined as
>
> break-in <procedure-name> [<module-or-file-name>]
>
> and means break at the start of that procedure.
That looks nice (I suppose it could also perform better than
`scan-source-whash'), but would "let" count as a <procedure-name> in
your example? If so, how could we specify the scope referred to?
Thanks,
Ludovic.