From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4663 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 20:17:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 4651 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 20:17:01 -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 20:16:59 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FAC2B-00087J-1w; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:16:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Paul Koning , ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints Message-ID: <20060217201655.GB30881@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Paul Koning , 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> <20060217200712.GB30145@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00213.txt.bz2 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 > > 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