Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints

Eli Zaretskii
2006-02-18T17:50:40Z

> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:42:15 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:46:53 -0500
> > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > > Cc: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>, ghost@cs.msu.su,
> > > gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > >
> > > Do we want to uniformly present watchpoints as after-the-store, as
> > > a least common denominator and for consistency?
> >
> > Don't we do this already? I thought we did.
>
> Yes, sorry I was unclear - that is what we do (although I think the
> implementation could use a little improvement, based on past
> conversations on this list). Just wanted to present that there are,
> in fact, alternatives.

Well, FWIW, I think what we do is The Right Thing, and not just for
consistency's sake.