From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make enable reset disposition
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3zkcvn3lr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F21EE80.104@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:23:28 -0800")
>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> writes:
Stan> In the process of developing an additional enablement option (to be
Stan> posted soon), I ran across this little bit of behavior that seems
Stan> wrong; if you do "enable once" and then "enable" on a breakpoint, the
Stan> disposition is unchanged - the breakpoint is still going to get
Stan> disabled after being hit.
Nice find.
Stan> A more complicated solution might be to introduce an additional flavor
Stan> or option of enable command ("enable always"?), but I wouldn't like to
Stan> try to explain the different flavors to users, and chances are that
Stan> nobody would remember it anyway.
If you want to go this way, I think explaining it doesn't have to be too
hard. You could just have the "enable once" docs say, "if you did
`enable once' and then changed your mind, you can `enable always' to
undo it"; and then in the `enable always' paragraph (semi-redundantly)
mention that this command exists just to undo the effect of enable once
and enable delete.
FWIW I didn't even remember the existence of enable once or enable delete.
I think I have never used them.
Stan> I couldn't see anything in the manual that addressed the point either way.
Doug> It feels like adding "always" doesn't muddy the waters any more than
Doug> they already are. :-)
Doug> If one were do do this again, having a new command instead of "enable"
Doug> may be easier for user's to digest and remember.
What Doug said; but with the caveat that I am actually ok with either
approach, as I consider this to be a fairly minor issue; however, if you
choose the simpler route then I think a manual update is in order.
Tom
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-06 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-27 0:43 Stan Shebs
2012-01-27 1:47 ` Doug Evans
2012-02-06 19:50 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3zkcvn3lr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=stanshebs@earthlink.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox