Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 10:14:27PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:07:12 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: eliz@gnu.org, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > 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".
> 
> There's no end to this.  A breakpoint could have in its comand list a
> command to delete the other breakpoint at this location; now what?
> 
> GDB gives users enough rope to hang themselves, so I don't think we
> should consider situations when they do.  We should, however, do
> reasonable things for simple situations where users expect us to do
> those reasonable things, and there are no complications to do what
> they expect.  I think.

Sure, but we disagree on whether the situation Paul described is
"reasonable" and "simple".  I really don't think it is.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery