From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  8 Nov 2013 18:51:54 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <c18c95ec163f211e43c7320ed244e53c@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20131108234629.GO11218@iota.offblast.org>
References: <20131108024600.GN11218@iota.offblast.org>
	<DCEDB867-5999-42E0-8C08-F940419C2637@gmail.com>
	<CAJSxfm+k5KQ-F0SEPa_gRMGxBgYzxP=_CPde2nUzYuYVWmAA=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131108234629.GO11218@iota.offblast.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] acid analogues of gdb stepping commands
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8a36d330-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> this seems like it should work, but sometimes the computed PC for the
> next line is way off, and cont() just runs the entire program. even more
> confusing, doing pcline of the computed pc prints the next line
> correctly, e.g.
>
> x = filepc(pcfile(*PC)+":"+itoa(pcline(*PC)+1));
> print(pcline(x));
>
> will show the next line, but the new PC in x is totally wrong.
>
> any clue why?

have you tried compiling with -N (no peephole opt).

- erik