From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22254 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2006 16:45:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22246 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2006 16:45:11 -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; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:45:08 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EyB00-0001PY-C7; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:45:00 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Koning Cc: comar@adacore.com, hilfingr@gnat.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: : Re: [RFC] multiple breakpoints from FILE:LINE Message-ID: <20060115164459.GA5390@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Koning , comar@adacore.com, hilfingr@gnat.com, gdb@sourceware.org References: <43C9AAA8.2030605@adacore.com> <17354.31047.417000.385481@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17354.31047.417000.385481@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 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/msg00120.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:33:11AM -0500, Paul Koning wrote: > Cyrille> I believe it would be worthwhile to have 2 different break > Cyrille> commands: - break - break-multiple (or whatever other more > Cyrille> appropriate name) > > Cyrille> break-multiple would have the semantics advocated by Daniel > Cyrille> (break automatically on all relevant locations) > > Cyrille> break, instead of presenting a menu, would issue an error of > Cyrille> the kind: > > Cyrille> (gdb) break FILENAME:LINENUM multiple choices for this > Cyrille> breakpoint, please use any of the following: break-multiple > Cyrille> FILENAME:LINENUM break FILENAME:instance1.function:LINENUM Well, I think this should be just one command, and maybe have "break" in the CLI issue a warning (just like it does now). But that's a relatively small change. The instance1.function syntax handles one important Ada case, but there's plenty of other cases; for instance, there can be an arbitrary chain of inlining. I'm not convinced that there's any practical way to get it right. > Nice. What syntax would you use for the two constructors, and three > destructors, that have the same C++ names? I've yet to see a compelling reason to break on one constructor and not the other. Most users don't even know the difference between when each is called. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery