Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:22:22PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:12:07PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>>+	if (so_name 
>>>>+	    && !strcmp (so_name, solib->so_name))
>>>>+          {
>>>>+	    b->enable_state = bp_shlib_disabled;
>>>>+	    /* At this point, we cannot rely on remove_breakpoint
>>>>+	       succeeding so we must mark the breakpoint as not inserted
>>>>+	       to prevent future errors occurring in remove_breakpoints.  */
>>>>+	    b->loc->inserted = 0;
>>>>+	    if (!disabled_shlib_breaks)
>>>>+	      {
>>>>+		target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
>>>>+		warning ("Temporarily disabling unloaded shared library 
>>>>breakpoints:");
>>>>+	      }
>>>>+	    disabled_shlib_breaks = 1;
>>>>+	    warning ("breakpoint #%d ", b->number);
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you're missing a space after the colon, in the first warning.
>>>Also, this use of multiple warning() statements is neither i18n
>>>friendly nor MI/GUI friendly - you may get a separate dialog box for
>>>each.  I believe other places do this with sprintf; still not 100% i18n
>>>friendly, but avoids the MI/GUI problems.  I can't find an example
>>>offhand.
>>>
>>
>>What you do want to see so I don't waste my time on this.  As you already 
>>know, this routine was copied from the routine which disables shared 
>>library breakpoints in breakpoint.c.  Is it sufficient to just issue the 
>>warning that I am temporarily disabling unloaded shared library breakpoints 
>>and not spell out each breakpoint in turn?  I can see this as really 
>>annoying and pointless to an end-user if there are hundreds or thousands of 
>>breakpoints.
> 
> 
> That's a good idea.  How about this?
> 
>     target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
>     warning ("Temporarily disabling breakpoints for unloaded shared library \"%s\",
> 	     so_name);
> 

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind.  Consider it done plus your other 
comments.  Eli, in light of what Daniel and Andrew have said regarding the value 
of having an observer, may I repost with changes and check the code in?

-- Jeff J.