On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:38:18 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 26/10/2010 04:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:52:54 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> It's pretty self-evident that if you put a breakpoint on the name of a
>>> function, you want it to break every time that function is called.
>>
>> Perhaps, but it's also self-evident that the function *name* isn't
>> executed
> 
> Oh really?

Yes, really.  A function name is non-executable code - it's a reference.

>> so it makes no sense to set a breakpoint on a line that contains
>> non-executable code, since a breakpoint interrupts the flow of
>> *executable* code. ;-)
> 
> Until now, I haven't seen a debugger that prohibits you putting
> breakpoints on (say) a completely empty line. I mean, hell, isn't the
> debugger's job supposed to be to make your job *easier*? :-P

You've never used Borland's C compiler then.  Or MASM, or TASM. ;-)

How exactly does it make the job easier if the debugger lets you set 
breakpoints in places that logically make absolutely no sense?

>> Now *that* I can't argue with. ;-)
> 
> Heh. All it needs now is for some helpful soul to suggest that I submit
> a source code patch. :-P

Well, submit a patch. ;-)

You're welcome.

Jim

Post a reply to this message