From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20349 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2006 20:45:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 20341 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2006 20:45:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:45:27 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GXkxB-0002VW-W6 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:45:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints Message-ID: <20061011204525.GA9622@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <452CF534.4060209@st.com> <20061011135545.GA26060@nevyn.them.org> <452D0385.6010103@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <452D0385.6010103@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:45:25PM +0100, Andrew STUBBS wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >(gdb) b main if 1 > >Breakpoint 1 at 0x439ee0 > >(gdb) b main if 2 > >Note: breakpoint 1 also set at pc 0x439ee0. > >Breakpoint 2 at 0x439ee0 > > > >If that's right, why is similar for threads wrong? That's just a > >different condition. And the wording is such that it's perfectly > >correct. > > Maybe that is wrong too, but, as you say, it isn't lying. > > I would argue that a breakpoint in another thread is not in the same > location (unlike a condition). The similarity of the PC might be > considered an accident of the implementation, perhaps. > > It's also easy to tell that the thread is different, while comparing > conditions makes no sense (although checking for the presence of > conditions might). This does make a little sense to me. Anyone think there's value in keeping the note for breakpoints in different threads? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery