From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9288 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 20:00:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9268 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 20:00:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:00:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBEJxx7Q010070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:59:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oBEJxv4N004923; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:59:58 -0500 From: Phil Muldoon To: Tom Tromey Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Add an evaluation function hook to Python breakpoints. References: Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Phil Muldoon's message of "Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:51:07 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00261.txt.bz2 Phil Muldoon writes: > In the case of a new style breakpoint having both a CLI .condition() AND > an implemented method (though I could never see why you would want to do > this), whichever of those methods told GDB not to stop would trump the > other. (GDB assumes in bpstat_stop_status that the breakpoint will stop > the inferior (other than special cases like moribund breakpoints) and it > is up to the breakpoint evaluation to say, "hey don't stop". So the > stop-bit is never set by the conditional stuff, just unset). Reading back this sounds bogus. We've never had a situation where you can have two conditions determining the stop status of one breakpoint. In that case I think the inverse is true, if one says "stop" it should trump the other. In that case, and if that is the chosen path, I'll have to rewire a few extra things. Cheers Phil