On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Joost van der Sluis <jo...@cnoc.nl> wrote:
> 2. Could the compiler add more information to make this easier? Or >> is it simply a matter of compiling everything with a stack frame? >> >> How about using a 3d party library compiled without debugging info / >> stack frame? >> The library could use your code compiled with debug info (i.e. by >> calling a callback), where the debugger should stop. >> > > Indeed. That's one problem. Another problem is that on i386 a third-party > library could use another calling convention. And for some (most?) > compiler-proc's it is not possible to create a stack-frame, which also > would slow down the code. > > What the compiler could do is adding line-info for the complete code. But > I doubt that an average developers will appreciate that. An alternative > could be to add line-info, but with a remark that the code could be skipped > during stepping. But then we need to add something new to the Dwarf-format. > The only option I would think of, is to set break-points at all known routines and let the process run, until a break point is hit. That requires no changes to either compiler or debug-info format. I don't think that would be slow. Of course, there won't be enough of hardware breakpoints, but software breakpoints should do the trick at least of x86 platforms. I guess that what I would for duby... when I get chance to get back to it. thanks, Dmitry
-- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus