From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21337 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2012 20:44:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 21325 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2012 20:44:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:43:52 +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 q6PKhof4016824 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:43:50 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6PKhmi5004397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:43:49 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Marc Khouzam Cc: "'gdb-patches\@sourceware.org'" , Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [Patch] Cannot set pending bp if condition set explicitly References: <87zk6nkghi.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Marc Khouzam's message of "Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:30:47 -0400") Message-ID: <87y5m7fu63.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-07/txt/msg00588.txt.bz2 Marc> I took the original line from print_one_exception_catchpoint() Marc> when it figures out to print . Yeah, I'm just not sure that this test is definitive in all cases. Marc> But I changed it to use all_locations_are_pending() in the below Marc> patch, and it also solves the problem I was seeing. I'd like Pedro's input on this patch. I CC'd him. Marc> How does it look for HEAD and 7_5 (not the tests Marc> for 7_5 I gather)? I think it is fine to put a new test onto the release branch. The worst that can happen is a new FAIL -- but it isn't like the test case is 0-FAIL in normal circumstances anyway. Tom