From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13445 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2011 15:17:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 13436 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2011 15:17:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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, 05 Jul 2011 15:17:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9EB2BADB7; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:17:10 -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 Pk3Tb2Afa9hB; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA34F2BADA8; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4F562145615; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jerome Guitton Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ... Message-ID: <20110705151704.GX2407@adacore.com> References: <20110505162855.GA2546@adacore.com> <83bozgmhil.fsf@gnu.org> <83k4dcd1bh.fsf@gnu.org> <20110704192005.GQ2407@adacore.com> <20110705085308.GA16280@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110705085308.GA16280@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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/msg00151.txt.bz2 > > 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. That would be fine with me. But, in a way, you're also deviating from the general case by going from a one-bp-multiple-loc approach to a multiple-bp-single-loc approach. Either way, I think it can raise questions from the user... -- Joel