From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26310 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2007 14:14:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 26300 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2007 14:14:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:13:53 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1It1ws-0000LZ-Js for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:13:34 +0000 Received: from 77.246.241.246 ([77.246.241.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:13:34 +0000 Received: from ghost by 77.246.241.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:13:34 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: delete_breakpoint: don't try to insert other breakpoints Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <200711142324.11319.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200711161334.40641.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20071116130250.GA31441@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 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: 2007-11/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:13:51PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > > I'm okay with making the code cleaner, but on at a price of removing >> > > features, even if they are currently unused. > >> I'm sorry, I already said why I'm opposed to it. I have nothing >> further to add to what I said. > > I have to say I don't understand this conversation either. Eli, how > is code which will never be reached a feature? Vlad, you said this > would be cleaner if it just went back to insert_breakpoints; can we > do that? Or insert_bp_location, I think. I just was about to suggest that, but... if I convert this to insert_breakpoints/insert_bp_location, I cannot actually test it using current gdb. In order to test it, I'd need to change GDB to stop deleting breakpoints from inferior whenever it stops -- and such a change will likely require rewriting major bits of functionality. I think it's better to remove code that is apparently not used, and then revive parts of it as needed for future features (which would be tested), then hope this code will work. - Volodya