From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4294 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 08:14:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 4284 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2008 08:14:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:13:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 13669 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2008 08:13:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.local) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Apr 2008 08:13:30 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Bogdan Slusarczyk , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, gdb6.8] -break-list doesn't list multiple breakpoints Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:35:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> <20080414175043.GA1968@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080414175043.GA1968@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804151213.29064.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00271.txt.bz2 On Monday 14 April 2008 21:50:43 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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? I'll review this patch, but I think only when I get back from the KDevelop hackathon -- so not earlier than this Saturday. - Volodya