From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10765 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2009 07:59:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 10707 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2009 07:59:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com (HELO mail-yx0-f189.google.com) (209.85.210.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:59:25 +0000 Received: by yxe27 with SMTP id 27so5535449yxe.10 for ; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:59:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.235.8 with SMTP id i8mr24188573ybh.329.1252396762971; Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:59:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200909080920.27288.vladimir@codesourcery.com> References: <200908011113.32939.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200909010916.41171.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <8ba6bed40909071600g1d423d05oa18b4adcfc97153a@mail.gmail.com> <200909080920.27288.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ba6bed40909080059q5ff75456j493580304ec6f8ef@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 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/msg00192.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Tuesday 08 September 2009 Matt Rice wrote: >> >> 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. > > I am missing something. Pending breakpoint, by definition, is a breakpoint > that has zero locations. And breakpoint can have zero locations if and only > if we have failed to find any location that corresponds to the string > that user has specified. Therefore, pending breakpoint for a found symbol > or line seems just impossible. > I was only speaking about the behaviour of pending breakpoints where they accumulate a location when a location matching the user specified string is loaded in the future, which seems useful to me regardless of it having a location when using languages where it is possible for the user specified string to match multiple locations. But yes it appears that would not be a pending breakpoint by the definition given by you and manual.