From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6445 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2011 08:53:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 6437 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2011 08:53:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:53:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD3ACB038E; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:53:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twTud9vlSUNc; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from province.act-europe.fr (province.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.214]) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB35CCB01BA; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 560) id DF3E2165BB3; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:20:00 -0000 From: Jerome Guitton To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ... Message-ID: <20110705085308.GA16280@adacore.com> References: <20110505162855.GA2546@adacore.com> <83bozgmhil.fsf@gnu.org> <83k4dcd1bh.fsf@gnu.org> <20110704192005.GQ2407@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110704192005.GQ2407@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker (brobecker@adacore.com): > I think that this is a good general rule, and something we should > encourage our users to use. But it seems that it does not cover > the case where 'set multiple-symbols ask' is in use, does it? > My understanding, when `ask' is that, if the user selects `all', > then we're in the case above (fire at all locations, add new locations > as we discover them), but if the user selects a sub-sets of the > potential matches, what should we do? > > My suggestion, in that case, is to make the list of selected > locations static. In other words, we do not add new locations > as they get discovered. I would suggest a slightly different rule: all breakpoints are still "multiple" by default. No "static" one. But, in the case of 'set multiple-symbols ask' and when one symbol is selected, then a breakpoint will be set, whose location will not be ambiguous (it will be "canonicalized"). So this "multiple" breakpoint will always resolve to only one location. If more than one choice is selected, same thing, with one breakpoint per choice. I'd rather avoid adding a special breakpoint kind for 'ask'. Just to keep it simple.