From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23838 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2007 11:50:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 23824 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2007 11:50:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:50:29 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-141-251.inter.net.il [80.230.141.251]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id IVN45983 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:50:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:50:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vladimir Prus CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200709080313.33625.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (message from Vladimir Prus on Sat, 8 Sep 2007 03:13:33 +0400) Subject: Re: [9/9] expand locations Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200709080313.33625.vladimir@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-09/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 > From: Vladimir Prus > Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 03:13:33 +0400 > > + One case I'm not sure about is where originally we've > + set breakpoint at file:line. There were several PC values > + for that file:line, due to optimization, all in one block. > + We've picked on PC value. If "clear" is issued with another > + PC corresponding to the same file:line, what should we do? */ I think we should ask the user what she meant.