|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |