From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17778 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2008 18:05:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 17770 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2008 18:05:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:05:29 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B92F3C6A8; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix breakpoint condition that use member variables. From: Michael Snyder To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: <200803221240.16230.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200803221536.07586.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080322144931.GA19219@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:05:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1206381927.19253.1102.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-7.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00360.txt.bz2 On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 19:09 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:49:31 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: Vladimir Prus , > > gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > That could surprise the user. Is it possible to make an additional > > > change to look for possible other interpretations of i_ which are > > > currently in scope, and display a warning of some kind if such > > > possibilities are found? > > > > This is how breakpoint conditions have worked as long as I can > > remember > > But we could try make it better, couldn't we? I should think that the "i_" that's chosen should be the one in the scope of the breakpoint, not the one that is in scope when the breakpoint is created. Is that not what Vladimir is saying?