From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27088 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2011 22:23:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 27079 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2011 22:23:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 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-yw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.213.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:23:26 +0000 Received: by ywb26 with SMTP id 26so3021847ywb.0 for ; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:23:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.95.141 with SMTP id p13mr9814253yhf.371.1309904605727; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.95.167 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:23:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110505162855.GA2546@adacore.com> <83bozgmhil.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 02:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ... From: Matt Rice To: Tom Tromey Cc: Eli Zaretskii , brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Rice writes: > > Matt> If a breakpoint group could contain breakpoint groups, as well as > Matt> breakpoints, we have a tiering mechanism. > > This was also Pedro's approach -- a third tier. > > I prefer the proposal I posted on the basis of simplicity. > Also, it is tough to evaluate other ideas without a more complete > analysis of the various scenarios. > The attempt was to provide a simple fix for ambiguity, such as yours, and then separately implement grouping as a distinct concept/mechanism. I think it's more middle of the road between Pedro's and your proposal, I don't see why we couldn't implement the grouping mechanism separately on top of yours should someone want to, personally for the purpose of the discussion at hand, I believe your proposal is suffice.