Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #2251 > unrolled thread

high-level NOP

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  high-level NOP bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-09-26 14:12 -0700
    Re: high-level NOP Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-09-26 14:21 -0700
      Re: high-level NOP Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-26 17:26 -0500
        Re: high-level NOP bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-09-27 10:58 -0700
      Re: high-level NOP bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-09-27 10:54 -0700
        Re: high-level NOP Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-09-27 13:52 -0700
    Re: high-level NOP BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-26 19:45 -0500

#2251 — high-level NOP

Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?

For instance, in Java I might add:

System.out.println("whatever");

just so I can put a breakpoint there.

Does anyone else do this?

Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2252

On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:
> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?
>
> For instance, in Java I might add:
>
> System.out.println("whatever");
>
> just so I can put a breakpoint there.
>
> Does anyone else do this?
>
> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?
>
Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That 
requires no typing what-so-ever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2253

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:21:01 -0700, Daniel Pitts
<newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:

>On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:
>> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?
>>
>> For instance, in Java I might add:
>>
>> System.out.println("whatever");
>>
>> just so I can put a breakpoint there.
>>
>> Does anyone else do this?
>>
>> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?
>>
>Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That 
>requires no typing what-so-ever.


That may not be convenient - consider that if the following statement
begins a loop, your breakpoint will likely hit for every loop
iteration.

But to the OP, yes, on occasion I have, but it's rare enough that any
difficulty in typing it is irrelevant.  But you really want something
with few or no side effects, but that won't get optimized away or use
a lot of resources.  In Windows I've used a call to the (system)
GetTickCount() and ignored the results.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2256

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:26:33 PM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:21:01 -0700, Daniel Pitts
> 
> <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:
> 
> >> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?
> 
> >>
> 
> >> For instance, in Java I might add:
> 
> >>
> 
> >> System.out.println("whatever");
> 
> >>
> 
> >> just so I can put a breakpoint there.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Does anyone else do this?
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?
> 
> >>
> 
> >Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That 
> 
> >requires no typing what-so-ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may not be convenient - consider that if the following statement
> 
> begins a loop, your breakpoint will likely hit for every loop
> 
> iteration.
> 
> 
> 
> But to the OP, yes, on occasion I have, but it's rare enough that any
> 
> difficulty in typing it is irrelevant.  But you really want something
> 
> with few or no side effects, but that won't get optimized away or use
> 
> a lot of resources.  In Windows I've used a call to the (system)
> 
> GetTickCount() and ignored the results.

In Windows C++, you could probably do something like

#define N GetTickCount();

Then you just do a NOP like this:

N


Java probably doesn't have anything that succinct.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2255

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:21:02 PM UTC-5, Daniel Pitts wrote:
> On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:
> 
> > Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?
> 
> >
> 
> > For instance, in Java I might add:
> 
> >
> 
> > System.out.println("whatever");
> 
> >
> 
> > just so I can put a breakpoint there.
> 
> >
> 
> > Does anyone else do this?
> 
> >
> 
> > Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?
> 
> >
> 
> Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That 
> 
> requires no typing what-so-ever.

It seems like a lot of times the variables I'm interested in are out of scope on the next line.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2257

On 9/27/12 10:54 AM, bob wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:21:02 PM UTC-5, Daniel Pitts wrote:
>> On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:
>>
>>> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> For instance, in Java I might add:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> System.out.println("whatever");
>>
>>>
>>
>>> just so I can put a breakpoint there.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Does anyone else do this?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?
>>
>>>
>>
>> Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That
>>
>> requires no typing what-so-ever.
>
> It seems like a lot of times the variables I'm interested in are out of scope on the next line.
>

Then put the break-point on the point immediately before?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2254

On 9/26/2012 4:12 PM, bob wrote:
> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?
>
> For instance, in Java I might add:
>
> System.out.println("whatever");
>
> just so I can put a breakpoint there.
>
> Does anyone else do this?
>
> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?
>

public static void nop()
	{ /* does nothing */ }

...

SomeClass.nop();

?...


maybe as a class:
public class NOP extends Object {
public static void nop()
	{ /* does nothing */ }
}

NOP.nop();

?...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web