From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27805 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2002 20:46:40 -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 27780 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2002 20:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2002 20:46:39 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA18190; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D415F90.BE61E0BD@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:46:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: "William A. Gatliff" , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: "tbreak" and "commands" commands... References: <20020726185406.GG10000@gnat.com> <20020726140130.A15935@saturn.billgatliff.com> <20020726203114.GI10000@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > Does it work with "break" instead of "tbreak"? I've never tried it > > with tbreak, but "break" works in 5.1--- I use it a lot. > > Yes, it works with regular breakpoints. It's only with temporary > breakpoints that it does not work. I suspect that the temporary > breakpoint with its command list is deleted before the command-list gets > a chance to be executed. I would like to know if this is the intended > behavior (in which case I think GDB should refuse to add the command), > or if this is a bug. > Yes, it is a bug anyway. We should either refuse or handle the commands. Is there any specific reason you want to delete the breakpoint? You can just disable it as part of the commands.