From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6170 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2008 11:52:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 6157 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2008 11:52:29 -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; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:52:07 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JGCF2-0002eO-IB for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:52:04 +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 ; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:52:04 +0000 Received: from ghost by 77.246.241.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:52:04 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: bug in mi when setting breakpoint Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:52:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20071216125625.GE4783@coin> <18319.48140.659381.847861@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00489.txt.bz2 Nick Roberts wrote: > > This is different to what I've proposed -- namely reporting "there are > > several overloaded functions" and then allowing the frontend to select > > a specific one. > > I must have missed that. Can you please point to a reference? I can't immediately find that; the point was that -break-insert would list all possible function on which breakpoint can be set, without setting any. Then frontend will then specifically set breakpoints on the function it wants. > > > The solution you propose does not give a frontend a way > > to > > control which overloaded function to set breakpoint on, which seems > > like an important limitation for me. > > After selecting all breakpoints GDB prints: > > warning: Multiple breakpoints were set. > Use the "delete" command to delete unwanted breakpoints. > > I can see it may be an inconvenience but not how it can be a limitation. > IMHO, it seems preferable to generating prompts that are not compatible > with rules for MI output. To clarify -- are you suggesting what we should first create breakpoints for all overloaded function, and then remove those we don't need, in MI? - Volodya