Re: 'conditions' on a breakpoint should default like 'commands'

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>]

That explains why it was not implemented.

The CLI syntax sucks.  It was intended to accommodate lazy typists.
The expression should come enclosed in "". :-(

Fernando


Jim Ingham wrote:
> 
> Jason,
> 
> I don't think your suggestion will work.  The problem is that there is
> no unique way to determine whether the first word of the command after
> "condition" is a breakpoint number or a part of the condition.  For
> instance, I might write:
> 
> (gdb) cond 6 - foo == bar
> 
> This could be either
> 
>   a) the condition "-foo == bar" on the breakpoint 6, or the condition
> "6 - foo == bar" on the default breakpoint.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On Monday, September 10, 2001, at 05:57  AM, gdb-digest-
> help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>
> > Date: Sun Sep 09, 2001  10:59:21  PM US/Pacific
> > To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > Subject: 'conditions' on a breakpoint should default like 'commands'
> >
> > 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
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> Jim Ingham
> jingham@apple.com
> Developer Tools - gdb

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9