From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5933 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2010 10:59:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 5925 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Dec 2010 10:59:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:59:44 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PYGEM-0001sJ-Lz; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:59:38 -0500 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20101230080009.GJ2396@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:00:09 +0400) Subject: Re: [RFA] unexpected multiple location for breakpoint Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <1290474625-1582-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20101126172942.GK2634@adacore.com> <20101127183532.GA10136@caradoc.them.org> <20101210122337.GC2596@adacore.com> <20101228112546.GB2436@adacore.com> <83tyhxbthv.fsf@gnu.org> <20101229054841.GF2396@adacore.com> <83oc84bgv3.fsf@gnu.org> <20101230080009.GJ2396@adacore.com> Message-Id: Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 21:03:00 -0000 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00559.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:00:09 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > I don't think we are worse, but the reason why I bring it up is because > it's a definite departure from what we've been trying to do so far > (minimize the number of breakpoint locations). Maybe we have been doing that because multiple-location breakpoints were not available until very recently? > So, I'm just wondering if there might be some issues that I am not > taking into consideration. > > I'm willing to make that change, but this is going to require general > consent among the maintainers Right. Would other maintainers please speak up on this issue?