From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4092 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2008 23:51:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 4083 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Apr 2008 23:51:25 -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; Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:50:45 +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 E5CBD3D9F74; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:50:42 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62A0D8FC6D; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:50:34 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18420.7112.284823.68348@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:42:00 -0000 To: Bogdan Slusarczyk Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, gdb6.8] -break-list doesn't list multiple breakpoints In-Reply-To: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> References: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.1.92.3 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/msg00050.txt.bz2 Bogdan Slusarczyk writes: > Hi everyone, I wrote my own patch for -break-list. I'm not sure that it > meets all requirements mentioned in > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-01/msg00251.html and previous > discussions, but combination -break-list + multiple breakpoints is now > usable for me. I'm not familiar with gdb test suit, so it's NOT tested > at all (except few my own cases). > > What does it do? Until now -break-list returned: > ... > > After my changes it returns additional list named 'locations' instead of > second 'addr' field: I don't think the second 'addr' field should be there, but I'm not sure that I really like this 'locations' field. 4.1, 4.2 etc are breakpoints and so I think they should be identified as such (using the bkptno field). Notice that you can set them individually: -break-insert *0x6f14137f -break-insert *0x0442137f I also think that info break 4.1 and -break-info 4.1 should just list that breakpoint. With your patch it doesn't. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob