From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50708-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12960 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2007 12:25:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 12947 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2007 12:25:57 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:25:52 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-141-251.inter.net.il [80.230.141.251]) 	by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id DOM46198 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:25:47 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:25:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ur6l9qr76.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <200709081543.45598.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (message from 	Vladimir Prus on Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:43:45 +0400)
Subject: Re: [7/9] simplify pending breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <200709080150.05068.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <u3axps8ib.fsf@gnu.org> <200709081543.45598.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2

> 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.