From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id INkdKOTibWCycQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 12:50:44 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 94D1F1E965; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:50:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBD8E1E54D for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:50:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C85385482D; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:50:43 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 37C85385482D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1617814243; bh=i0bIMDBF1dCFLLrd0YtpmV3n++6+OgWjFE5SJfwA6sI=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=XWgnmWmkKsVJ7RspaApBAVPyzsVAyEKKtOq3DJim4/zOko+T6cudoD7Zlv0Heh0XB 9uq/3xorT7qWJBCPaqoZ3/IqAF8+rzl3lQk0I/eEkxVaqH1l7w1j2Yy8BYBi17FLE0 E1GHyFYyz7b95SEIotmkgC3zVAvAQe6NI28Tg28g= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 354CC385482D for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:50:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 354CC385482D Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49975) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUBO3-0005Rt-Ai; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 12:50:39 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3838 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lUBNz-00025L-JW; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 12:50:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 19:50:32 +0300 Message-Id: <83k0pe9gyv.fsf@gnu.org> To: "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" In-Reply-To: (tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] gdb/mi: add a '-b' flag to the '-break-insert' cmd to force the condition References: <30001cddf6183155c7355df3c74848881f2d80c4.1617806599.git.tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> <83pmz69l93.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8eq9jlk.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" > CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:05:11 +0000 > > Then how about simply accepting the condition by default in that case, > > without any need for a special flag? IOW, it makes little sense to me > > to accept the condition if it is _sometimes_ invalid, but not if it is > > _always_ invalid. It sounds like a gratuitous limitation. Am I > > missing something? > > There are two problems with that approach: > > 1. Backward compatibility would be broken. Would someone expect the current behavior? Why would they? > 2. (The more important one, IMHO) If the user makes a typo in the condition, > the breakpoint would still be accepted by making it disabled at all the locations. That's easy: issue a warning. Anyway, if no one else thinks like me, I'm okay with doing it your way.