From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3163 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2007 20:18:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 3145 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2007 20:18:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao103.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao103.cox.net) (68.230.240.9) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:18:17 +0000 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071113201816.NTGJ11060.eastrmmtao103.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net>; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:18:16 -0500 Received: from black ([70.181.32.198]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id CLGu1Y00P4GV2Jm0000000; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:16:55 -0500 Received: from bob by black with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Is2Cx-0007dL-4Z; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:18:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:18:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoint locations Message-ID: <20071113201756.GE12593@cox.net> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <18233.63439.953202.586908@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18234.1121.556841.49775@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18234.1121.556841.49775@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:09:05AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > (gdb) d 1.1 > > > warning: bad breakpoint number at or near '1.1' > > > > Well, you can't really delete a location -- if breakpoint expression > > corresponds to 20 addresses, that's the way it is -- you cannot delete > > some of those addresses from the program ;-) > > It's not immediately obvious, at least to me, so I think this should be > documented. Also I think error should be used for the message instead of > warning as the requested task is not performed. The message could be more > helpful too: > > (gdb) d 1.1 > This breakpoint cannot be deleted on its own. Yeah, this is yet another leaky abstraction. The common user has no idea why multiple breakpoints are created at once, and why they can not delete only one of the multiple added. I like the idea of showing the description. Perhaps with a reason why. > > > 2) I can enable/disable 1 and this appears to enable/disable all the > > > locations. > > > Perhap this could be documented in the manual. > > > > Well yes. Patches welcome ;-) > > I don't want to detract from the fact that you have contributed a major > patch but I think you should document your own changes. This is also a > good idea because you understand the changes best. Again, this is going to be something that is asked over and over. I think it'd be great to have it in the manual. Bob Rossi