From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21734 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2011 14:01:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 21717 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2011 14:01:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:01:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA3E1LZE028998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:01:21 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA3E1LdC008030; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:01:21 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA3E1JoJ022650; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:01:19 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich Weigand Subject: Re: RFC: don't set the pspace on ordinary breakpoints References: <201111021854.42981.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201111022021.03286.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201111022021.03286.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:21:02 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> Thanks. IMO, the executing_startup change IMO could go in Pedro> separately, as soon as it is correct, it looks quite independent. Pedro> What prompted it, BTW? It seemed wrong to mark an entire breakpoint as "startup disabled" in the case where the breakpoint has locations in multiple inferiors. Tom