From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15131 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 22:47:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 15109 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2009 22:47:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:47:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NMlbFM015574; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:47:37 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3NMlaHi010634; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:47:36 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-14-41.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.41]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NMlZQU014344; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:47:35 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 370EC37829A; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:47:35 -0600 (MDT) To: dje@google.com (Doug Evans) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA]: Handle multi-line versions of multi-breakpoints References: <20090302065301.356261C7A1E@localhost> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090302065301.356261C7A1E@localhost> (Doug Evans's message of "Sun\, 1 Mar 2009 22\:53\:01 -0800 \(PST\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (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: 2009-04/txt/msg00674.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> "multi-breakpoints" (multiple breakpoints for the same source Doug> line) don't work for constructors and inline functions where the Doug> source expression spans several lines (at least for the new Doug> testcases included in this patch). Doug> This patch fixes it by, if there's no exact match, Doug> rescanning the symtabs for all matches of the best match. This sounds like Jerome's patch, which I approved earlier today. I didn't realize that you had both fixed the same problem before doing that. After reading both patches, I would prefer for his to go in; assuming of course that it actually does fix your problem as well. Your test cases seem more comprehensive. I would not mind seeing these go in after his patch. They are ok, if you want to do that. Tom