Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:45:25 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> 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?

I do.

Mark