Re: [PATCH] dynamic printf

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> writes:

Stan> Another consideration is how the collection looks in an info break
Stan> command.  If dynamic prints are a different kind of breakpoint, then
Stan> you can (in theory) filter the breakpoint listing to a single
Stan> category, but if they are just breakpoints with special commands,
Stan> they'll continue to be in the big list.

I tend to prefer a new command for this reason and also KISS.

Stan> My intuition isn't giving me a strong read on which approach users
Stan> will like better.  As the goal is at least partly to entice
Stan> printf()+recompile users into using a GDB command instead, I think it
Stan> needs to be among GDB's simpler commands.  Maybe include both
Stan> syntaxes, mapping down to same functionality?

dprintf breakpoints have different semantics from regular breakpoints,
too, don't they?  They are non-stopping.

It seems to me that if you go the suffix route, then you also need ways
to control the stopping-ness, and to change or delete the printf stuff.

I think it is simpler and hardly any less convenient for users to just
have dprintf and regular breakpoints be separate things.

If we get a flood of bug reports to the contrary, we can always go back
and add the printf qualifier later.

Tom