From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 902 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2006 15:40:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 893 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2006 15:40:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp6.wanadoo.fr (HELO smtp6.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.22.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:40:01 +0000 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0607.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 063D41C001C2 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:39:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (AStDenis-105-1-23-52.w81-248.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.248.235.52]) by mwinf0607.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 939FD1C001A9; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:39:58 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20060113153958604.939FD1C001A9@mwinf0607.wanadoo.fr Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 0040347E7B; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:39:54 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paul Hilfinger , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] multiple breakpoints from FILE:LINE Message-ID: <20060113153954.GI10275@adacore.com> References: <20060113104212.0B28848CBD8@nile.gnat.com> <20060113152350.GA9758@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060113152350.GA9758@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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/msg00111.txt.bz2 > We have discussed this issue many times in the past, as recently as two > weeks ago. In the beginning of 2005 I posted a prototype patch to set > only a single breakpoint, but associate it with multiple locations. I > still firmly believe that that is the correct solution. However, the > patch was never finished. > > Those menus have got to go. They're (a) confusing to users (in my > opinion, no real data), and (b) extremely awkward for graphical > frontends. I'm just worried about the case where you want to break on one particular instance. It's been a while since I debugged Ada, but it's not so uncommon. At my previous job, we were still using Ada83, and some of the limitations of that old revision of the language led us to use generics in place of function pointers. We had lots and lots and lots of generics, in particular the one generic package that we used to implement callbacks. It would be very difficult to debug this code if we were forced to break on all of them.... I agree on your (a) and (b), though, expecially (b). As for (a), it's a slightly complex concept, so I don't know how much we can do to unconfuse the users... -- Joel