From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2731 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 09:21:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 2719 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 09:21:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:21:00 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (2.60.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.60.2]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345293D83E8; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:20:51 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 299838FC6D; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 21:20:36 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18420.41316.87382.142756@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:45:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH, gdb6.8] -break-list doesn't list multiple breakpoints In-Reply-To: References: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> <18420.35123.566932.669202@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.50.1 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 > > Using the bkptno field means that existing frontends will recognise these > > locations as breakpoints. > > Yes, but those are not a breakpoints, do it will do a disservice to the > existing frontends. In particular, might find it very interesting experience > to edit condition of one breakpoint, and having conditions on other > breakpoints change. Likewise, changing any properly of location will not > work. > > I think that right now, the only thing that existing frontend cannot do is > to individually disable and enable locations. This is nice thing to have, > but not very critical, so I think it's fine for only new frontends to have > this capability, given the presenting locations as breakpoints comes with a > bunch of issues. If set individually, the multiple breakpoint locations can be used with deleted, ignore, condition and commands. Why would this not true when the location is part of a multiple breakpoint? Is it just due to the implementation or a fundamental limitation? -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob