From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53742-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 29020 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2008 07:35:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 29011 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2008 07:35:52 -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; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:35:27 +0000
Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (192.31.255.123.static.snap.net.nz [123.255.31.192]) 	by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB823DA133; 	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:35:20 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) 	id 811F08FC6D; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:35:15 +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: <18336.10418.671118.355348@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:50:00 -0000
To: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [BUG:MI] -break-list doesn't list multiple breakpoints
In-Reply-To: <fnp8jj$hl3$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <18310.38708.144719.374963@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<18336.7948.316240.708346@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<fnp8jj$hl3$1@ger.gmane.org>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 23.0.50.40
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
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: 2008-01/txt/msg00774.txt.bz2

 > Given that such a change has a potential to totally break frontend,
 > I'm not sure we can talk in the abstract. If you send me the most
 > recent version of your patch, I can see if KDevelop will be happy,
 > or not.

It's been a long thread and maybe I've lost the plot but I'm just talking
about the simple change below now.

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


*** breakpoint.c.~1.299.~	2008-01-30 11:59:18.000000000 +1300
--- breakpoint.c	2008-01-30 20:32:30.000000000 +1300
*************** print_one_breakpoint (struct breakpoint 
*** 3669,3676 ****
  	 exposed to user.  */
        if (b->loc 
  	  && !is_hardware_watchpoint (b)
! 	  && (b->loc->next || !b->loc->enabled)
! 	  && !ui_out_is_mi_like_p (uiout)) 
  	{
  	  struct bp_location *loc;
  	  int n = 1;
--- 3669,3675 ----
  	 exposed to user.  */
        if (b->loc 
  	  && !is_hardware_watchpoint (b)
! 	  && (b->loc->next || !b->loc->enabled))
  	{
  	  struct bp_location *loc;
  	  int n = 1;