From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1329 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2002 17:50:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1266 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2002 17:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2002 17:50:01 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA30807; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:49:58 -0700 Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1) id xma030795; Tue, 16 Apr 02 10:49:55 -0700 Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22]) by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3GHnvN10114; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id KAA20983; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:49:57 -0700 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15548.25669.770292.567059@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:50:00 -0000 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: does bpstat_print stop printing prematurely? In-Reply-To: <4060-Tue16Apr2002154926+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <200204152003.NAA11126@casey.transmeta.com> <15547.51222.125386.852824@casey.transmeta.com> <4060-Tue16Apr2002154926+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2 I wrote: > Assuming one decides to print all breakpoints, either move the > control for source/frame printing into bpstat_print or pull > the loop in bpstat_print into normal_stop(). Hmmm... another possibility is to do neither. Instead, with the preprocessing pass in bpstat_print one could early exit if printit_done is found, otherwise print all the non-pc breakpoints first, then print all the pc-breakpoints last, and then return one of `print_stop_action'. That's requires a minimal amount of change and feels safest. The only issue is whether programs that parse the output would get confused if multiple pc breakpoints get reported. The source location would still only be printed once so I'm guessing it's ok, but someone with some knowledge of all the various programs that parse the output should be consulted.