From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18855 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 17:48:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 18763 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 17:48:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 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 17:48:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBEHmSh3015783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:48:28 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBEHmSxt010856; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:48:28 -0500 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 oBEHmRAJ001188; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:48:27 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3622A37848F; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:48:27 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: pmuldoon@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Add an evaluation function hook to Python breakpoints. References: Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Phil Muldoon's message of "Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:02:44 +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 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/msg00251.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon writes: Tom> I think there should also be a test for the case where there is an Tom> ordinary user breakpoint at the same location as the Python breakpoints. Tom> In this case, the user breakpoint should stop, but all the Python Tom> methods should be invoked first. Phil> All the breakpoints at a location will be evaluated, but does the order Phil> matter? The order matters in the sense that GDB can't stop and give the user a prompt before evaluating all the conditions. I don't think we should make any promises about the relative order in which breakpoint conditions will be evaluated. Phil> I can add the test to prove the point, but the Python breakpoints Phil> will have the evaluation function called regardless if the user Phil> breakpoint was first. Yes, that is what we want to test -- that the condition methods are evaluated regardless of whether a user breakpoint exists. This is the "no interference" case. Tom