From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5010 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2013 20:12:22 -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 4999 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2013 20:12:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:12:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAEKCAdJ032322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:12:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.51]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAEKC75w027146; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:12:08 -0500 Message-ID: <52852E97.6010809@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:22:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Allow CLI and Python conditions to be set on same breakpoint References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00386.txt.bz2 On 14/11/13 17:48, Doug Evans wrote: > Hi. > > Way back when this was added I wanted to prevent both CLI and Python > conditions from being set on the same breakpoint because it wasn't > clear there wouldn't be any problems allowing both. > [And it's easier to relax restrictions than to impose them after the fact.] No objections from me. I have not looked at the patch in the context of breakpoint.c, but as long as all "stop" callbacks have a chance to run regardless of whether a previous "stop" or cli condition has had a chance to execute it is fine. Looking at the patch, it seems it did not alter this loop, so this is still the case, is that right? Cheers, Phil