From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3131 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2006 16:16:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 3120 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2006 16:16:08 -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; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:15:59 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FJv8m-0003h2-Hv for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:15:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MI: changing breakpoint location Message-ID: <20060316161556.GA14155@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060316160521.GA13476@nevyn.them.org> <200603161911.55098.ghost@cs.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200603161911.55098.ghost@cs.msu.su> 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: 2006-03/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:11:54PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > How much trouble is it, really, to remove and recreate the breakpoint? > > In code, something line 28 lines, 7 lines of actual code exclusing comments. > In development time -- something like an hour, including two failed attempts. > And this assumes the current version is bug free and nobody will break it in > future. > > How much trouble is it to change breakpoint location in gdb? A whole lot more than that. We'd have to destroy most of the existing breakpoint. > > Almost all of the work of the "break" command is figuring out where the > > breakpoint should go. I don't see an advantage in having more commands > > that need to be able to work that out. > > Can't that logic be factored out into a function? Of course, it already is. But that's not the point; I don't want a proliferation of commands with similar functionality, when they aren't needed. The larger the MI interface grows, the harder it is to test and maintain. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery