From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1686 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2011 22:22:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 1676 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2011 22:22:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-gw0-f41.google.com) (74.125.83.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:22:02 +0000 Received: by gwaa12 with SMTP id a12so19220gwa.0 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:22:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.161.165 with SMTP id w25mr2104419yhk.7.1302646921686; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.110.15 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:22:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals' From: Matt Rice To: Pedro Alves Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Sergio Durigan Junior 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >=A0Another argument, > is that frontends and users using them aren't expecting that a single > breakpoint is represented by more than one visual "point", circle next to > the sources, or something like that. =A0Hitting F8 to toggle a breakpoint= 's > enablement changing some other location source "point" enablement > in the sources not currently visible seems to break some abstration > to me. =A0I think such design change needs to consider all these > issues (and be experimented with some frontend). I think this "visual point" metaphor to some extent is already broken, I more often than one might expect end up setting multiple breakpoints on the same function with different conditions and or commands. could be as simple as a number inside the "visual point", and adding a right-click 'breakpoint editor', thing to bring up another window. to me, this seems like something which should be allowed, but not something to surprise a user with. thus, this leads me to ask, does this happen because it is the users intent, or something else.