From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4167 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2013 18:00:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4132 invoked by uid 89); 26 Apr 2013 18:00:48 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:00:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3QI0kYV024576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:00:46 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3QI0jWY021820; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:00:45 -0400 Message-ID: <517AC0CC.80406@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:46:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Cleanup pending breakpoints References: <517716B5.7050406@redhat.com> <5177EDAF.6030107@redhat.com> <517986D9.3060607@redhat.com> <517ABD12.9020506@redhat.com> <517ABE65.1040809@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <517ABE65.1040809@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00821.txt.bz2 On 04/26/2013 06:50 PM, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 04/26/2013 10:44 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> If in the end, there's no use in the tree for an "allow-pending" >> option that allows pending but doesn't fail with a regular >> non-pending breakpoint, in addition to a new "pending" option that >> _requires_ pending, then I'd rather eliminate "allow-pending". > > Right, that's what I meant -- remove "allow-pending" and add "pending". I suggest for the immediate time, we/I introduce "pending" (i.e, fail if regular BP set), and then we/I can go back and take a look at all the users of allow-pending and ascertain whether they would work (or were supposed to work) if a normal breakpoint was set. > > From the dozen cases or two that I've already looked at (or written), all were really of the required type not optional type, i.e., the test was written specifically for a pending breakpoint; a regular breakpoint would break the test. Sounds like a good plan to me. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves