Re: Simplify MI breakpoint setting

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Tuesday 08 September 2009 you wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir Prus<vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 08 September 2009 Matt Rice wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>
> >> I don't like how break_command_really looks for the symbol first, then
> >> if it fails to find one and
> >> pending breakpoints are enabled it will set a pending breakpoint, I
> >> think it might sometimes make sense
> >> to set a pending breakpoint even though there may be a match.
> >
> > I am missing something. Pending breakpoint, by definition, is a breakpoint
> > that has zero locations. And breakpoint can have zero locations if and only
> > if we have failed to find any location that corresponds to the string
> > that user has specified. Therefore, pending breakpoint for a found symbol
> > or line seems just impossible.
> >
> 
> I was only speaking about the behaviour of pending breakpoints where
> they accumulate a location
> when a location matching the user specified string is loaded in the
> future, which seems useful to me regardless of it
> having a location when using languages where it is possible for the
> user specified string to match multiple locations.
> 
> But yes it appears that would not be a pending breakpoint by the
> definition given by you and manual.

In fact, *all* breakpoint will pick new locations at present. We don't
have a mechanism to "lock" a breakpoint to the locations it presently
has. (And nobody has yet requested this)

- Volodya