From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31293 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 08:45:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 31283 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 08:45:34 -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 08:45:15 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JhL4G-0006k2-BJ for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:45:08 +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 08:45:08 +0000 Received: from ghost by 78.158.192.230 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:45:08 +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 10:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <47F3946A.3090000@op.pl> <18420.35123.566932.669202@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/msg00055.txt.bz2 Nick Roberts wrote: > > > 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. > > Using the bkptno field means that existing frontends will recognise these > locations as breakpoints. Yes, but those are not a breakpoints, do it will do a disservice to the existing frontends. In particular, might find it very interesting experience to edit condition of one breakpoint, and having conditions on other breakpoints change. Likewise, changing any properly of location will not work. I think that right now, the only thing that existing frontend cannot do is to individually disable and enable locations. This is nice thing to have, but not very critical, so I think it's fine for only new frontends to have this capability, given the presenting locations as breakpoints comes with a bunch of issues. - Volodya