From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7149 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2003 23:18:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7142 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2003 23:18:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 2003 23:18:27 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9GNIRM11435 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:18:27 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9GNIPL12464; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:18:25 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9GNIPJ02197; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:18:25 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8F2740.8050609@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:18:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elena Zannoni CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] References: <3F846B04.2070801@redhat.com> <3F85B4AC.7000000@redhat.com> <20031014013831.GB6118@nevyn.them.org> <3F8C18DD.3020508@redhat.com> <20031014155126.GA10669@nevyn.them.org> <3F8C605E.1060604@redhat.com> <3F8D6181.6070409@redhat.com> <3F8D8FEB.8020305@redhat.com> <16269.39677.813094.890124@localhost.redhat.com> <2719-Thu16Oct2003085405+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <20031016131144.GA14202@nevyn.them.org> <16270.44057.973638.26816@localhost.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <16270.44057.973638.26816@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00574.txt.bz2 Elena Zannoni wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:54:05AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > From: Elena Zannoni > > > > 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.