From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26152 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2012 19:50:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 26139 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2012 19:50:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 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; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:50:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q16JoQnB019141 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:50:26 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q16JoPuB012396; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:50:26 -0500 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 q16JoOGD011560; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:50:24 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make enable reset disposition References: <4F21EE80.104@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F21EE80.104@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:23:28 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (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: 2012-02/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs 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