Re: PR8554: New command to save breakpoints to a file

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:

Pedro> (I finished this instead of dumping it.)

Thanks.  I do like this approach.

Pedro> Add a new save-breakpoints command to save breakpoint definitions
Pedro> to a file.

I'd personally prefer "save breakpoints", with a space, and make
save-tracepoints a deprecated alias for "save tracepoints".  What do you
(and others) think of this?  I tend to like simple commands with spaces,
especially when a subcommand comes along.

Pedro> The new breakpoint_ops->print_recreate method implementation for
Pedro> all catchpoints is always mostly a simplified version of
Pedro> breakpoint_ops->print_mention method.

Could you enlighten me on a historical (?) point?  Why is it that some
kinds of breakpoints have methods like this and some do not?  Is this an
incomplete transition, or an intentional design choice?

Pedro> +    if (tp->thread != -1)
Pedro> +      fprintf_unfiltered (fp, " thread %d", tp->thread);
Pedro> +
Pedro> +    if (tp->task != 0)
Pedro> +      fprintf_unfiltered (fp, " task %d", tp->task);
Pedro> +
Pedro>      if (tp->cond_string)
Pedro>        fprintf_unfiltered (fp, " if %s", tp->cond_string);

I don't think this syntax will work for a conditional catchpoint.
Our Python-based implementation gets this wrong as well.  I think you
need a separate "cond" command in the output.

Tom