Re: [RFA]: pending breakpoint support [1/3]

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:51:07PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> >>+  input_radix = b->input_radix;
> >>+  rc = break_command_1 (b->addr_string, b->flag, b->from_tty, b);
> >>+  
> >>+  if (rc == GDB_RC_OK)
> >>+    /* Pending breakpoint has been resolved.  */
> >>+    printf_filtered ("Resolves pending breakpoint \"%s\"\n", 
> >>b->addr_string);
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >Spelling error, though.
> > 
> >
> Actually, I meant it to be:
> 
> Breakpoint set at.....
> Resolves pending breakpoint "....."
> 
> So the bottom line ties to the breakpoint just set.  If this isn't very 
> clear I can put "which" in front or just make it "Resolved" which I 
> think you are alluding to.  If there is some other spelling error, 
> please point it out as I don't see it.

I read it and assumed that you meant "Resolved".  I think that
"resolves" is grammatically confusing here, since there's no implicit
subject.  How about "Pending breakpoint \"%s\" resolved"?

> 
> > 
> >
> >>@@ -4779,6 +4888,26 @@ create_breakpoints (struct symtabs_and_l
> >>	b->ignore_count = ignore_count;
> >>	b->enable_state = bp_enabled;
> >>	b->disposition = disposition;
> >>+	/* If resolving a pending breakpoint, a check must be made to see if
> >>+	   the user has specified a new condition or commands for the 
> >>+	   breakpoint.  A new condition will override any condition that was 
> >>+	   initially specified with the initial breakpoint command.  */
> >>+	if (pending_bp)
> >>+	  {
> >>+	    char *arg;
> >>+	    if (pending_bp->cond_string)
> >>+	      {
> >>+		arg = pending_bp->cond_string;
> >>+		b->cond_string = savestring (arg, strlen (arg));
> >>+		b->cond = parse_exp_1 (&arg, block_for_pc (b->loc->address), 
> >>0);
> >>+		if (*arg)
> >>+		  error ("Junk at end of pending breakpoint condition 
> >>expression");
> >>+	      }
> >>+	    /* If there are commands associated with the breakpoint, they 
> >>should +	       be copied too.  */
> >>+	    if (pending_bp->commands)
> >>+	      b->commands = copy_command_lines (pending_bp->commands);
> >>+	  }
> >>	mention (b);
> >>      }
> >>  }    
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >Here's the one question.
> >
> >The only way to get here with a PENDING_BP is from break_command_1 from
> >resolve_pending_breakpoint.  So I don't think it is possible for there
> >to be a condition already set on B, which makes the comment about
> >"overriding" such a condition a little strange.  Am I right, or is
> >there some other way to get a condition to here?
> > 
> >
> The scenario would be:  1. User creates a pending breakpoint with a 
> condition in the break location.  2. User specifies a condition for the 
> breakpoint number given back for the pending breakpoint using the 
> condition command.  3. The shared library gets loaded that resolves the 
> breakpoint.  The resolution of the breakpoint will find the original 
> condition in the location string, but won't know about the 2nd one which 
> gets stored in the pending breakpoint cond_string (see condition_command 
> support for pending breakpoint).

I'd have thought the original condition would have been removed from
addr_string already.  Can we not do that without being able to parse
the location?  Won't this produce confusing "info breakpoints" output?


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer