From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8491 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2007 13:02:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 8479 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2007 13:02:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:02:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23EA29835E; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:02:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F339D9824E; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:02:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1It0qQ-0008Fy-8A; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:02:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: delete_breakpoint: don't try to insert other breakpoints Message-ID: <20071116130250.GA31441@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200711142324.11319.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200711161334.40641.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:13:51PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > I'm okay with making the code cleaner, but on at a price of removing > > > features, even if they are currently unused. > I'm sorry, I already said why I'm opposed to it. I have nothing > further to add to what I said. I have to say I don't understand this conversation either. Eli, how is code which will never be reached a feature? Vlad, you said this would be cleaner if it just went back to insert_breakpoints; can we do that? Or insert_bp_location, I think. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery