From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23216 invoked by alias); 6 May 2011 07:16:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 23206 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2011 07:16:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 May 2011 07:16:14 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LKR00900IQR2400@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 06 May 2011 10:16:09 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.234.175]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LKR008EEIUVOKB0@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 06 May 2011 10:16:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 07:16:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ... In-reply-to: <20110505224016.GB2568@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83aaf0mh8m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110505162855.GA2546@adacore.com> <20110505224016.GB2568@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:40:16 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > E.g., consider the case where a linespec resolves to two locations, one > > of which does not have debuginfo. What is the canonical linespec for > > the debuginfo-less location? What if there are three locations and two > > of them don't have debuginfo? I.e., are those two consolidated into a > > single breakpoint? What would its canonical linespec be? Or if not > > consolidated, etc. > > I think that, in a case where we have matches in code with debug > info, we shouldn't even bother looking at code without debugging > info. I think that this would be reasonable. Not reasonable enough, IMO: we are silently ignoring some of the places where the user probably wanted to break. Displaying some warning about those places without debug info would be good enough, though.