From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12617 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2009 08:15:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 12368 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2009 08:15:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:15:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 5431 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2009 08:15:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Sep 2009 08:15:01 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Matt Rice , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Simplify MI breakpoint setting Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.24-24-generic; KDE/4.2.90; i686; svn-979530; 2009-06-10) References: <200908011113.32939.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200909080920.27288.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <8ba6bed40909080059q5ff75456j493580304ec6f8ef@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8ba6bed40909080059q5ff75456j493580304ec6f8ef@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200909081214.59195.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: 2009-09/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 08 September 2009 you wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 September 2009 Matt Rice wrote: > > > > >> > >> 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