From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14502 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2008 17:51:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 14493 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Apr 2008 17:51:16 -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; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:50:46 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADE0983D9; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:50:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A500198119; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:50:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JlSpH-0005Th-F0; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:50:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Bogdan Slusarczyk Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [PATCH, gdb6.8] -break-list doesn't list multiple breakpoints Message-ID: <20080414175043.GA1968@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Bogdan Slusarczyk , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Vladimir Prus References: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 04:12:58PM +0200, Bogdan Slusarczyk wrote: > Hi everyone, I wrote my own patch for -break-list. I'm not sure that it > meets all requirements mentioned in > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-01/msg00251.html and previous > discussions, but combination -break-list + multiple breakpoints is now > usable for me. I'm not familiar with gdb test suit, so it's NOT tested at > all (except few my own cases). There was some discussion of the behavior of multiple-location breakpoints after this patch was posted, but no discussion of the actual patch. Volodya, could you look at it - does this seem like the right way? Bogdan, thanks for the patch. Are you interested in further contribution to GDB? If so, I can send you the copyright paperwork we require; I think this sneaks by just under the limit, but we prefer to have it on file for the future. To commit this we'll eventually need manual and testsuite updates. You don't necessarily have to handle those yourself (though I'm sure it would be appreciated if you did - on the other hand, at that point we'd definitely need the paperwork). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery