From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28889 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2003 18:43:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28856 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 18:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.22) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 18:43:02 -0000 Received: from zaretsky ([80.230.235.130]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AIM07351; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:41:46 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:43:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: ac131313@redhat.com Message-Id: <2110-Wed12Mar2003203702+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3E6DFD1D.4090205@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:13:33 -0500) Subject: Re: fix break, not add future-break Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <3E6DFD1D.4090205@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:13:33 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > I'd like to propose that break be modified so that it behaves something > like: > > (gdb) break printf.c:printf > File "printf.c" not currently known, set breakpoint anyway? > > And then later: > > (gdb) c > Loading shared library libc.so. > Enabling breakpoint "printf.c:printf" at .... Sounds like a good idea to me.