Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:10:46AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
>>>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:05:02 -0400
>>>From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
>>>
>>>>(gdb) info break
>>>>Num Type           Disp Enb Address    What
>>>>1   breakpoint     keep y   0x08048354 in foo::foo (in-charge) at hello.c:8
>>>>                            0x08048364 in foo::foo (not-in-charge) at hello.c:8
>>>>(gdb) 
>>>
>>>Here's the problem that I see.
>>>
>>>For foo::foo, there are two of these things.  Having them both in the
>>>list would be nice.  Really nice.
>>>
>>>For inline_accessor_fn there are 3.8 million.  In addition to needing
>>>to do a whole lot of work on GDB internals before we could survive this
>>>(memory usage; ptrace thrashing inserting and removing them; linked
>>>lists of breakpoints; and that's just the beginning) this has some
>>>severe user interface implications.  We don't want to print out all
>>>those addresses by default!
>>>
>>>I'm open to suggestions on how to deal with this.
>>
>>How about a switch to "info break"?  By default, show only the
>>in-charge breakpoint, but if the user says "info break -all" or some
>>such, show the other 3.8 million minus one.
> 
> 
>>From a user interface perspective, I got a really strong negative
> pushback the last time I tried to add a switch to any GDB command.
> 

OK, how about modeling after "info reg" vs. "info all-reg"?
Giving us "info break" and a new "info all-break".