From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17365 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2002 20:31:16 -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 17358 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2002 20:31:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2002 20:31:14 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 307A0D2CBD; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "William A. Gatliff" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: "tbreak" and "commands" commands... Message-ID: <20020726203114.GI10000@gnat.com> References: <20020726185406.GG10000@gnat.com> <20020726140130.A15935@saturn.billgatliff.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020726140130.A15935@saturn.billgatliff.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 > Does it work with "break" instead of "tbreak"? I've never tried it > with tbreak, but "break" works in 5.1--- I use it a lot. Yes, it works with regular breakpoints. It's only with temporary breakpoints that it does not work. I suspect that the temporary breakpoint with its command list is deleted before the command-list gets a chance to be executed. I would like to know if this is the intended behavior (in which case I think GDB should refuse to add the command), or if this is a bug. -- Joel