From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Debugging GNU Emacs on MS Windows / getting control back to gdb Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:16:12 +0300 Message-ID: <83oa4maq6b.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86pop2je7e.fsf@realize.ch> <83wpjaayfs.fsf@gnu.org> <86lgzqjcv2.fsf@realize.ch> <83tweearpg.fsf@gnu.org> <86d1l2j60z.fsf@realize.ch> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1471807021 18901 195.159.176.226 (21 Aug 2016 19:17:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alain Schneble Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 21 21:16:57 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYEr-0004jE-8s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 21:16:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37923 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYEo-0000nP-Gg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:16:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYEF-0000nK-Al for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:16:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYEC-0005Yg-4u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:16:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49691) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYEC-0005Xt-1Q; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:16:16 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4671 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYE8-00008W-Ba; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:16:14 -0400 In-reply-to: <86d1l2j60z.fsf@realize.ch> (message from Alain Schneble on Sun, 21 Aug 2016 21:06:36 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:206731 Archived-At: > From: Alain Schneble > CC: > Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 21:06:36 +0200 > > > And even that might not be enough for a frequently called function. > > Then you need to make the breakpoint conditional on some input values, > > or the value of point, or whatever else can filter out hits you don't > > want. > > But that was exactly my point, that it is more cumbersome to setup a > conditional breakpoint. Nevertheless, it's frequently a necessity. > Whereas with a process suspension, I only have to set an > unconditional breakpoint and then continue execution. Of course, > this works well only if I know that the next call to the function is > the one call I'm interested in. Exactly. And you can never know that in advance, not with functions called frequently.