From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Jason Molenda Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: 'conditions' on a breakpoint should default like 'commands' Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 05:57:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B9CB7B8.F1DEE64C@redhat.com> References: <20010909225921.A16335@shell17.ba.best.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00085.html I couldn't agree more. Fernando Jason Molenda wrote: > > The "commands" command in gdb will assume the most recently set > breakpoint if no breakpoint number is provided. The "condition" > command in gdb requires a breakpoint number. This seems unnecessarily > inconsistent. My best guess as to the thinking of the original > implementer was that users could set the condition on the breakpoint > line directly, so they wouldn't often be putting a condition on > the bp right after setting it. > > The difference in breakpoints.c is minor; commands_command reads > > p = arg; > bnum = get_number (&p); > > Whereas condition_command reads > > if (arg == 0) > error_no_arg ("breakpoint number"); > > p = arg; > bnum = get_number (&p); > > I checked back through the gdb v3.0 era releases, and these commands > have always behaved this way--I can't find any historial reason > for them to act differently. It was the case that get_number () didn't > exist back then, so maybe that helped to shroud the similarity of the > two commands. > > I'd like to make condition default to the most recent breakpoint > if no argument is provided. If anyone agrees with this, I'll supply > a patch to the code, the documentation, and a test case. I don't > see this as causing problems for existing users -- typing "cond 5" > will still set a breakpoint on bp #5; the only difference is that > if you type "cond", gdb will do something whereas it used to return > an error message. > > Thanks, > > Jason