From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8963 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2003 19:41:08 -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 8956 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2003 19:41:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2003 19:41:07 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A7gen-0005F7-9T; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:41:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Message-ID: <20031009194105.GA19977@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <20031009140848.GA29621@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 07:03:41PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:48 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > From a user interface perspective, I got a really strong negative > > pushback the last time I tried to add a switch to any GDB command. > > Any pointers to messages where such pushback could be seen? I'm > curious what could be the motivation. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00499.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00612.html and others. I still agree with: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00608.html but I lost that argument. > Another possibility would be to have 2 commands: "info breakpoints" > which only shows one breakpoint for each user breakpoint, and "info > all-breakpoints", which shows all of them. We already have a > precedent for such an arrangement with "info registers" vs "info > all-registers". > > Anyway, going to the maint-land is something I think we should avoid > in this case, as the breakpoints not shown by default are interesting > not only for GDB maintainers. Michael Snyder also likes this, so all-breakpoints it is (will be). This will include multi-address breakpoints but not GDB internal ones like maint info breakpoints. What to do for MI I have no idea. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer