Little question about Stepping

[tight fable]

I want to confirm just.sooo pls
Step Into executes and debug code until selected line
Step Over executes and debug code until the "return" line of the function you have stepped on
Step Out the same as Step Over but it does so: if you stepped on function it executes program until the line where function was called , or how on a website they says "when functions returns"
Step Back executes and debug code from selected line to 0
Confirm pls people bc I am doing this stuff slowly.And if someone care about it, I posted it bc today I want to end with finishing reading page about stepping, and practice tommorow.(bc I got homework to do)

[lilac scarab]

When your question is answered use !solved to mark the question as resolved.

Remember to ask specific questions, provide necessary details, and reduce your question to its simplest form. For tips on how to ask a good question use !howto ask.

[lethal warren]

Step into will step into any function call, step over will not, but both go forward 1 line of code

When you press step into, it will go 1 line forward, or if it's on a function call, it will go into the function

Step over is the same, but it will go over the function call

This is useful when a function is very trivial(like a getter) so you don't need to step into it

[tight fable]

you mean ignore function calls or execute the next statement after function?

[tight fable]

one line forward

In translation I can understand that you mean:"it will execute only one selected line"

but doesn't it start from top of main()?

[lethal warren]

your program does
the debugger stops on breakpoints tho

[tight fable]

when you answer only through time, it makes me think someone is chasing you and you typed as fast as you could

[lethal warren]

the functions still get called, the debugger just skips over them

[tight fable]

then what is the difference when you call function and go into it . IN both cases it is being executed

[frigid parrot]

Write some code and use the debugger. That's the best way to familiarize yourself with these features

[tight fable]

I will show what it shows me

when i tried

[lethal warren]

step into lets you go trough the function line by line

step over will jump over the whole function without going into it

[tight fable]

OOOHOH

yeaaah I got it

with "into" you can examine functions too

[lethal warren]

like if you have a function like
int foo::getX(){ return x;} you dont want to step into this

[tight fable]

the reason is : that it takes more resources ?

of pc

[lethal warren]

no

its because you dont care about a getter because its 1 line and you dont need to look into it when debugging

so you step over it because its behavior is trivial

[lethal warren]

bro what how

[frigid parrot]

Yeah that makes absolutely no sense to me

[tight fable]

I can not from error message what even to do

[lethal warren]

;compile

#include <iostream>

int main(){
  int a, b;
  std::cin >> a >> b;
  a+= 1;
}

[bitter wren]

Compilation successful

No output.

nevemlaci | 50ms | c++ | x86-64 gcc 14.2 | godbolt.org

[lethal warren]

yeah that shouldnt happen you code is fine

[frigid parrot]

Only thing I can think of is the code doesn't match

[lethal warren]

huh

[frigid parrot]

But even then I don't think the debugger would work

[tight fable]

we just do not care about what to choose?

[lethal warren]

what

[tight fable]

mhm

uhhm

I mean doesn't matter ?

[lethal warren]

you dont need to step into a function that is completely trivial like a getter

[frigid parrot]

Sometimes you might want to

[tight fable]

the options are also trivial? (I tried to translate this word)

[tight fable]

to create semantic optimization? (eng is not my traditional lang)

[tight fable]

not physical

okay guys but what about 2 others

is everything fine with them?

https://tenor.com/view/i-need-a-drink-running-in-a-hurry-gif-14089552