From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25628 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2006 15:27:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 25620 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2006 15:27:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:27:32 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1ExQps-0002be-Gv; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:27:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew STUBBS Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , hilfingr@gnat.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] multiple breakpoints from FILE:LINE Message-ID: <20060113152728.GC9758@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew STUBBS , Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , hilfingr@gnat.com, gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060113104212.0B28848CBD8@nile.gnat.com> <20060113115647.GG10275@adacore.com> <43C7B5EF.20900@st.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43C7B5EF.20900@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:15:11PM +0000, Andrew STUBBS wrote: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >How about something like > > > > break something.adb:12 if SOME_CONDITION > > > >where SOME_CONDITION is something we should invent to specify the > >instance where we want to put the single breakpoint? This has the > >advantage of using an existing syntax, especially if the condition > >could be made to use some convenience variable. By contrast, what you > >suggest modifies the syntax of a location specification; do we really > >want that? > > Not that it makes any real difference but ... > > To me that looks like it will set a break point everywhere and then > check at runtime if it is the right one. > > Now I know you weren't thinking of doing that, but that's what the > condition normally means. > > It may also make setting a real condition more tricky. Yes, I agree. I think we do want to modify the syntax of a location expression, which is currently somewhat complicated and weakly defined. However, I've suggested that we do that as a second step - to specify one single breakpoint, instead of the multiple ones we'd set by default. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery