From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18927 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2002 22:31:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18915 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2002 22:31:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (205.232.38.247) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 2002 22:31:40 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 8C257D2CBD; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] GDB/624 - tbreak commands not executed when breakpoint hit Message-ID: <20020822223142.GS25997@gnat.com> References: <20020731200936.GL683@gnat.com> <3D6560A2.BEA0B7DD@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6560A2.BEA0B7DD@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00730.txt.bz2 Michael, > Joel, this implementation, with its use of delete_at_next_stop, > seems clumsy and, to be frank, scary. Instead, what if you just > made a temporary copy of the tbreak command-list (like you do for > GDB/622), then delete the breakpoint, and later execute the commands? Thanks for your review. I need a bit of time to delve into this again, but I'll be quite busy in the next 2 or 3 weeks. You can consider this patch withdrawn in the meantime. -- Joel