Re: [7/9] simplify pending breakpoints

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:43:45 +0400
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> On Saturday 08 September 2007 15:26:36 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > > Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:50:04 +0400
> > > 
> > > @@ -5422,12 +5355,9 @@ break_command_1 (char *arg, int flag, in
> > >      }
> > >    else
> > >      {
> > > -      struct symtab_and_line sal;
> > > +      struct symtab_and_line sal = {};
> > 
> > Is this a valid initializer in ISO C?  I think it isn't; at least
> > under -pedantic, GCC says:
> > 
> >     ttt.c: In function `foo':
> >     ttt.c:6: warning: ISO C forbids empty initializer braces
> 
> Ehm. Then do I have to resort to 'memset' to initialize it?

Yes, something like that.

> > > -	      breakpoints_changed ();
> > > +	      /* We surely don't want to warn about the same breakpoint
> > > +		 10 times.
> > 
> > Why not?  They are different breakpoints.
> 
> What are "they"?

The several locations for the same breakpoint.  This is what we are
talking about here, right?  Sorry if I again misunderstood the code.

> Say you've set a breakpoint. The you've changed the
> program and restarted it, so that breakpoint is not longer valid.
> I do expect an error to be printed, but I don't expect that error
> to be printed each time a new shared library is loaded.

I thought you were talking printing the warning for each of the
several locations of the same breakpoint.  In that case, only some of
them could be affected by a library load.