From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27981 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2010 20:42:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 27971 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2010 20:42:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=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, 30 Mar 2010 20:42:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2UKgh8R011392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:42:44 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2UKghcv029649; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:42:43 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 o2UKggYm003465; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:42:42 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 34276378185; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:42:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [2/2] RFC: let "commands" affect multiple breakpoints References: <201003251709.32951.pedro@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201003251709.32951.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:09:32 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-03/txt/msg01084.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> I have a suggestion for this, in form of a patch. How Pedro> about we just print the breakpoint range? It makes sense to me. I think I didn't do this because I thought it would look weird if the user entered an invalid range specifier. But on reflection I'm not concerned about that. Pedro> WDYT? It looks reasonable to me, though be sure to incorporate the subsequent bug fix: 2010-03-26 Tom Tromey * breakpoint.c (commands_command_1): Duplicate 'arg'. Tom