From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9065 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2009 23:00:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 9057 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Sep 2009 23:00:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_37,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yw0-f201.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f201.google.com) (209.85.211.201) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:00:37 +0000 Received: by ywh39 with SMTP id 39so4614093ywh.26 for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:00:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.75.6 with SMTP id x6mr24834537yba.283.1252364435512; Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:00:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200909010916.41171.vladimir@codesourcery.com> References: <200908011113.32939.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200908241353.40486.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200909010916.41171.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ba6bed40909071600g1d423d05oa18b4adcfc97153a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Simplify MI breakpoint setting From: Matt Rice To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Tuesday 01 September 2009 Tom Tromey wrote: > >> >>>>> "Volodya" =3D=3D Vladimir Prus writes: >> >> Volodya> And, progressing recursively, what is the point of not exposing >> Volodya> all the parameters of break_command_really? >> >> I don't actually know. =A0But if I had to guess, I would say it is becau= se >> providing wrappers ensures you can't pass in some forms of nonsense. >> >> If you really want to do it, and nobody objects, then I guess I don't >> care all that much. =A0This whole API seems a bit nuts, any time you have >> 13 arguments you should just assume you've done something wrong already. >> >> I do care about not exporting a function named "break_command_really" >> though. > > Ok. I imagine that break_command_really can be renamed to set_breakpoint = :-) > here are my thoughts, I don't like how break_command_really looks for the symbol first, then if it fails to find one and pending breakpoints are enabled it will set a pending breakpoint, I think it might sometimes make sense to set a pending breakpoint even though there may be a match. though I do think that the break_command_really behaviour is good for the 'break command' if we were to introduce a 'pbreak', or pending breakpoint command, I could imagine pbreak_command_really or something calling something named set_breakpoint, but that is not just renaming break_command_really. similarly, there is currently no way to do 'set multiple-symbols pending' or all+pending, and making 'set multiple-symbols ask' respond like this: [0] cancel [1] all [2] pending (note that you could select (1 2) get all, and a pending or 2 and just set a pending breakpoint. (now you'll have to ignore all the rest of the stuff you can think of required to make this behaviour anything but annoying) this stuff as-is seems difficult since all the multiple-symbols stuff predates pending breakpoints. and there is no real API for setting them outside of a non-match afaict, please correct me if i'm wrong. so i think that makes me pro exposing some subset of break_command_really, and not opposed to also exposing the stuff I wouldn't need exposed.