Re: [8/9] multiple locations

[Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 10:06:02 you wrote:
>  > As I say in another email, I might be able to implement using <PENDING>
>  > as address in all cases.
> 
> I don't pretend to understand the code but the patch below seems to work
> for me (probably not all cases).

I believe that in a case of breakpoint with multiple locations, where
the first location is shlib_disabled, the updated code will print <PENDING>
as address, not <MULTIPLE>.

I think the right approach would be moving the check for loc->shlib_disabled later, like this:

    if (b->loc == NULL)
        ui_out_field_string (uiout, "addr", "<PENDING>");
    else if (header_of_multiple)
        ui_out_field_string (uiout, "addr", "<MULTIPLE>");
    else if (loc->shlib_disabled)
        ui_out_field_string (uiout, "addr", "<PENDING>");
    else
        ui_out_field_core_addr (uiout, "addr", loc->address);

But there's also testsuite to be updated and getting somebody to
actually approve this patch.

>  > But generally, trying to keeping CLI back compatible have to stop
>  > at some time -- if we keep this "don't break CLI clients even if
>  > CLI clients were deprecated from some time" attitude, it will result
>  > in new features being available via MI only.
> 
> Focussing on the issue at hand, we're just talking about making a minor
> adjustment to the format of "info breakpoints", for the case of pending
> breakpoints, to avoid breaking existing frontend(s).  

Not quite. We're trying to please frontend(s) using deprecated protocol.
However little time is spent on that, it's time not spent on other, better things.
Is there a reason Emacs website cannot say "Use MI support, available at http://..."?

- Volodya