From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20767 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2011 18:00:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 20757 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2011 18:00:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:00:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 15232 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2011 18:00:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 Aug 2011 18:00:16 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ... Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20110505162855.GA2546@adacore.com> <201108021633.04777.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108021900.13298.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-08/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 02 August 2011 18:08:46, Tom Tromey wrote: > Pedro> I never replied to your patch, but my reaction was that it is > Pedro> probably breaking breakpoints in the new inferiors today, even > Pedro> without any linespec/multi breakpoints work. > > Is there a way to set a breakpoint in a new inferior without first > loading the debuginfo by hand? It has been a while since I was looking > at this, but I don't remember finding a way. > > If there is one, though, I can easily test this. If you set a breakpoint before the fork, the breakpoint will end up with locations in the new inferior after the fork. Same if e.g., you set a breakpoint before a fork/exec, and post-exec image happens to have been compiled from the same code (file:lineno) as the original breakpoint's location was resolved to. I was under the impression your patch would make it so the new inferior would no longer stop for these breakpoints. > Pedro> What I don't think I have seen addressed is how the proposal > Pedro> interacts with multi-exec. E.g, suppose I have program foo > Pedro> loaded once (one inferior) and program bar loaded twice (two > Pedro> inferiors). I have one of the bar inferiors in focus, > Pedro> and I do "b main". How many locations does this resolve to? > Pedro> One, two, or three? Currently, it resolves to two. > > Three, following the rule that a breakpoint will fire at all matching > locations. Okay. -- Pedro Alves