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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:54:05AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>  > > > From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
>  > > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:07:41 -0400
>  > > > 
>  > > > 1. insert the breakpoint, show confirmation to the user. If we have 20
>  > > >    'real' breakpoints inserted, what do we tell the user? 
>  > > 
>  > > If we can guess the one address which is what the user wants to see in
>  > > the current context, let's show that single address.  Otherwise, let's
>  > > either show all of them or none at all, perhaps controlled by some
>  > > user option.
>  > 
>  > Seems reasonable.
>  > 
> 
> sounds ok to me.
> 
> Just occurred to me that maybe the user sometimes would want to set a
> breakpoint in just one particular instance of an inlined function, we
> should still allow that. I.e. should setting the multiple breakpoints
> be the default?

Going by what we have now, consider homonymic static functions.
If you say "break foo", it's ambiguous, and gdb currently
asks you which one you mean (with the option to say "all of them").

But if you want to specify one, you can say "break aout.c::foo".

Similarly with overloaded functions and templates.  You spell out
the function signature.

As always, I am unsure how to handle compiler-generated stuff
that may not have a source location.