From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11948 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2006 22:14:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 11939 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2006 22:14:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:14:05 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC16248CDA3 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 09861-01-4 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C8C48CD9F for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id EFEE947F00; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:14:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints Message-ID: <20061011221401.GF1059@adacore.com> References: <452CF534.4060209@st.com> <20061011135545.GA26060@nevyn.them.org> <452D0385.6010103@st.com> <20061011204525.GA9622@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061011204525.GA9622@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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/msg00132.txt.bz2 > > 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 don't really mind either way. I don't personnaly find the current wording as irritating, and none of our customers have ever complained about it yet, but it sounds easy to support, so why not. The note is still pretty short despite the addition. -- Joel