From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-42487-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 4428 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 07:06:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 4417 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 07:06:07 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:06:04 +0000
Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p211-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.211]) 	by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657D2740BAE; 	Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:06:00 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) 	id 5E0258884; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:05:09 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17368.29860.166572.879412@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:06:00 -0000
To: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add fullname field for MI -break-info command
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2


I've probably not followed the whole thread, but here goes...

> > Hmm, so I should update all examples of "-break-list" output as well? What 
> > path should I put there? Is /home/foo/bar/<whatever-the-source-file-is>.c 
> > fine?

> Yes, please update the documentation for -break-list,

-break-insert also uses print_one_breakpoint so I guess that should be
updated

>                                                       and I don't know
> if you should even bother with -break-info. I still don't know if that
> command should exist if it's identical to -break-list. A machine
> interface does not need 2 commands for the same functionatlity, IMO.

I don't know if its needed either but now its there I don't see any
point in removing it (if it ain't broke don't fix it).

Also the doc says:

    The `-break-info' Command

    Synopsis

          -break-info BREAKPOINT
    
       Get information about a single breakpoint.

    GDB command

    The corresponding GDB command is `info break BREAKPOINT'.

    Example

    N.A.

and

    Also note that the commands with a non-available example (N.A.) are not
    yet implemented.

but -break-info clearly has been implemented.


Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob