On 02/08/2012 03:27 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:47:23 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> We're already sorting by address first, so I'm not really sure what is
>> it that's user-visible that we're trying to preserve.  Jan?
>
> I no longer remember if
>
> (a) I was wrongly expecting "duplicate"-marked locations are somehow visible
>      in "info breakpoints".
> or
> (b)<the new patch comment below>.
>
> I will check the comment change in, I hope everyone agrees with the reason.
>
>
>> Even if that is still necessary, would it be ok to sort by address, then
>> pspace, and only after by bkpt number?
>
> I agree with Pedro, update_global_location_list was introduced as GDB
> acceleration as the breakpoints performance became no longer bearable.
>
> While update_global_location_list is far from perfect (it should be
> incremental) we should not regress performance when it is enough to do it just
> in a bit different way as Pedro suggests.

I agree. Here's a new patch that touches the bp_location_compare 
function instead.

Luis