From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7282 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2004 22:26:20 -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 7270 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2004 22:26:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2004 22:26:19 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AqgKf-0002Ku-DI; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:26:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints and scripts Message-ID: <20040210222616.GA32636@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <4027E74B.6090805@gnu.org> <20040209223227.GA7344@nevyn.them.org> <40294BA1.3020906@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40294BA1.3020906@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 04:22:41PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:02:19PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>Anyone noticed this? > >> > >>(top-gdb) run testsuite/gdb.base/advance > >>Starting program: ... > >>Setting up the environment for debugging gdb. > >>Function "internal_error" not defined. > >>Breakpoint 1 (internal_error) pending. > >>Function "info_command" not defined. > >>Breakpoint 2 (info_command) pending. > >>(top-gdb) > >> > >>It's caused by this: > >> > >> if (!query ("Make breakpoint pending on future shared library > >>load? ") > >>) > >> return rc; > >> > >>The old behavior was: when in batch mode, throw an error (and hence > >>abandon the script) if the breakpoint insert fails. > >> > >>The new behavior is: when in batch mode, always insert the breakpoint. > >>when not in batch mode never throw an error. > >> > >>For the existing behavior to be restored the query's logic would need to > >>be reversed (ask the oposite question) and then re-throw the error. A > >>/pending qualifier could then be added. > >> > >>Thoughts? > > > > > >I'd rather not reverse the question. We could check from_tty at the > >call site, and not set pending breakpoints if no tty... > > Why? Well, how would you word it? It makes more intuitive sense to me to answer 'y' to create something special and 'n' to do nothing, than the other way around. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer