Skip to content

gh-103049: Support instruction level debugging in pdb #103050

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gaogaotiantian
Copy link
Member

@gaogaotiantian gaogaotiantian commented Mar 27, 2023

Copy link
Contributor

@artemmukhin artemmukhin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is one more thing I would like to mention. I think it would be better to use instr instead of inst as an abbreviation for instruction, in both commands and source code. From what I have seen in the project, inst is also used for instance, whereas instr is primarily used for instruction.

@gaogaotiantian
Copy link
Member Author

There is one more thing I would like to mention. I think it would be better to use instr instead of inst as an abbreviation for instruction, in both commands and source code. From what I have seen in the project, inst is also used for instance, whereas instr is primarily used for instruction.

Using instr in the source code sounds like a good idea because that's how dis does it. However, in gdb and lldb, I think they just use stepi and nexti for the LONG version and that kind of makes sense. I think I'll go with that - si and stepi, do not use stepinst or stepinstr.

Copy link
Contributor

@artemmukhin artemmukhin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using stepi and nexti as long versions of commands makes sense for me as well 👍

gaogaotiantian and others added 7 commits April 8, 2023 16:18
Co-authored-by: Artem Mukhin <ortem00@gmail.com>
Used stepi instead of stepinst(other commands too)

Abstracted a function to restore caller trace function
Co-authored-by: Artem Mukhin <artem.m.mukhin@gmail.com>
@gaogaotiantian gaogaotiantian marked this pull request as ready for review April 8, 2023 23:22
gaogaotiantian and others added 2 commits April 9, 2023 11:06
Co-authored-by: Artem Mukhin <artem.m.mukhin@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants