From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32573 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2008 18:09:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 32562 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2008 18:09:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:08:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 7196 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2008 18:08:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 26 Apr 2008 18:08:50 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: [MI] -break-delete with several breakpoints Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:28:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804262208.50476.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 I've noticed that right now, both -break-delete and -break-disable commands accept several breakpoint ids, like: -break-disable 1 2 3 This behaviour comes almost by accident, and is not documented anywhere. The question is -- should we document it and add tests, or should we declare this behaviour does not exist? I think that most of the time, making use of this behaviour will require explicit code in the frontend, and the question is if that makes sense. Say, for -var-update accepting a list of variable object might be good idea, since the number of variable object can be significant, and they are updated on each step. For deleting and disabling breakpoints, I'm actually not sure. Typically, there are few breakpoints and wholesale delete is not common, so it's not worth optimizing for. Opinions? - Volodya