From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19639 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2003 17:02:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19631 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2003 17:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2003 17:02:03 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0035) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1A7eAc-0003Gi-Qm; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:01:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:02:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20031009140848.GA29621@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:48 -0400) Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <20031009140848.GA29621@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:48 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > From a user interface perspective, I got a really strong negative > pushback the last time I tried to add a switch to any GDB command. Any pointers to messages where such pushback could be seen? I'm curious what could be the motivation. Another possibility would be to have 2 commands: "info breakpoints" which only shows one breakpoint for each user breakpoint, and "info all-breakpoints", which shows all of them. We already have a precedent for such an arrangement with "info registers" vs "info all-registers". Anyway, going to the maint-land is something I think we should avoid in this case, as the breakpoints not shown by default are interesting not only for GDB maintainers.