From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11883 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 19:08:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11848 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 19:08:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 19:08:07 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.141.57]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.8-GR) with ESMTP id CGG21673; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:07:21 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:08:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <9787-Sun18Jan2004210346+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <400AC9D4.1020104@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:00:52 -0500) Subject: Re: RFC: Centralize DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK handling from infrun Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040117222007.GA23563@nevyn.them.org> <20040118151909.GA17039@nevyn.them.org> <3791-Sun18Jan2004192337+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <400AC9D4.1020104@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00478.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:00:52 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > It would be nice if we could announce all breakpoints that break at > > that point, but this might not be possible or very hard, I dunno. > > I'm not that sure that the current code is right though :-( Me neither. That's why I think we should try to do better if it's reasonable. But we shouldn't make things worse, at the very least. > I recall comlaints about the current behavior - it should report all > possible reasons for breaking and not just the first. Sure, and the commands bound to all breakpoints should certainly be run, which we don't currently do. That's a bug.