Re: question for gdb users...

[David Chisnall]

I don't object to removing this syntax.  If I do

break [MyClass foo]

At the moment gdb spams me with a load of 'failed to resolve  
breakpoint 1' warnings every time the program starts until it finally  
finds one.  It then, usually, finds the right one, but often puts the  
breakpoint somewhere random.  If I break on a C function name that is  
also an Objective-C method name then it has a habit of infinite  
looping asking me if I really want to insert the breakpoint there.   
This is so common that I now use line numbers rather than symbolic  
breakpoints in C code (and to break on a specific instance of a  
method) because it's the only way that actually works.

The only reliable way I've found of breaking on every message send to  
a -foo method is:

break objc_msg_send
print sel_get_uid("foo")
0x00000f00
condition 1 op==0x00000f00

Some shorthand syntax that generated the equivalent of this sequence  
would be useful (you need the extra sel_get_uid() step because  
otherwise message sends become painfully slow).

David

On 24 Sep 2009, at 04:40, Matt Rice wrote:

> there is some discussion here about removing the convenience mechanism
> that allows
> you to go
>
> break foo
> where foo then turns into -[class foo]
>
> this causes lots of issues which are fairly hard to fix in gdb,
> which is why the whole 'break main' with recent gdb causes issues.  
> because of
> [NSThread main].
>
> if you guys opposed to it please let me know and I will relay it into
> the gdb thread,
> I for one wasn't even aware of this feature until it started causing  
> problems
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00734.html
> here is the thread.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep