On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:05:31 +0100, scott wrote:

>> Yes, really.  A function name is non-executable code - it's a
>> reference.
>>
>> How exactly does it make the job easier if the debugger lets you set
>> breakpoints in places that logically make absolutely no sense?
> 
> I'd argue that setting a breakpoint on a function name means the code
> breaks every time that function is called.  That seems pretty logical to
> me.

If I want to do that, I'll set it up on the first line of executable code 
in the function.  That makes logical sense to me.

If I go into, say, the NetWare kernel debugger (which I have spent many, 
many months in), I can set a breakpoint at a "function", but the function 
is a reference to the first executable line of machine code inside the 
function IIRC (Now I think of it, it might be on the call itself - I may 
need to restart my VM and look again at that).

Jim

Post a reply to this message