From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13446 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 04:42:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 13438 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 04:42:38 -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; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:42:08 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JhHGz-00053m-8L for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:42:01 +0000 Received: from 78.158.192.230 ([78.158.192.230]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:42:01 +0000 Received: from ghost by 78.158.192.230 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:42:01 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [PATCH, gdb6.8] -break-list doesn't list multiple breakpoints Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> <18420.7112.284823.68348@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: 2008-04/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 Nick Roberts wrote: > Bogdan Slusarczyk writes: > > Hi everyone, I wrote my own patch for -break-list. I'm not sure that it > > meets all requirements mentioned in > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-01/msg00251.html and previous > > discussions, but combination -break-list + multiple breakpoints is now > > usable for me. I'm not familiar with gdb test suit, so it's NOT tested > > at all (except few my own cases). > > > > What does it do? Until now -break-list returned: > > ... > > > > After my changes it returns additional list named 'locations' instead of > > second 'addr' field: > > I don't think the second 'addr' field should be there, but I'm not sure that I > really like this 'locations' field. 4.1, 4.2 etc are breakpoints and so I > think they should be identified as such (using the bkptno field). They are not really independent breakpoints. For example, condition is part of the main breakpoint, and removing main breakpoint removes all locations, so it's better to represent things this way. - Volodya