From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7402 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2009 20:32:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 7392 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2009 20:32:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:32:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0209B2BAC81; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:32:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2kmPtWXGyDeZ; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E5A2BAC13; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BC583F5924; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:32:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix internal error on breaking at a multi-locations caller Message-ID: <20090428203235.GG31821@adacore.com> References: <20090309220736.GA27259@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00770.txt.bz2 > Based on the documentation of `break', and also my mental model of > debugging with gdb, I think that the best behavior here would be to > simply set a single breakpoint here -- the one corresponding to the > instance that is currently being executed. Then we don't have to > worry about the other instances, and we won't set odd breakpoints > elsewhere. > > What do you (or anybody) think of that? That's a good point. I actually had a different interpretation of the "break" command without arguments, but the documentation is very specific about it. I agree with you. -- Joel