From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29611 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 20:07:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29493 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 20:07:29 -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, 17 Feb 2006 20:07:17 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FABsm-0007wU-8j; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:07:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Koning Cc: eliz@gnu.org, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints Message-ID: <20060217200712.GB30145@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Koning , eliz@gnu.org, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060217153211.GA21402@nevyn.them.org> <20060217194426.GA28988@nevyn.them.org> <17398.11182.747232.774924@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17398.11182.747232.774924@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: 2006-02/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 03:01:50PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote: > I think it is wrong to step around a breakpoint that's set at a > different instruction than one that triggers a watchpoint. For > example, suppose I'm monitoring a variable by setting a watchpoint, > and setting up a command sequence to print an expression and > continue. Separate from that, I want the program to break at line x. > > It is a bad thing for the break at x to fail due to the bad luck of > having a watch exception at the preceding instruction. If the two > stops happened to be the SAME instruction, then you have plausible > deniability. But not if they are different instructions. This just doesn't scale. Now the user places two breakpoints at foo (via complicated scripts, say) and one of them has continue in its commands list. The user could make the exact same argument to complain that we "didn't stop". -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery