Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:31:23AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>>>I'd rather not reverse the question. We could check from_tty at the >>>>>call site, and not set pending breakpoints if no tty... >>> >>>>Why? >>> >>> >>>Well, how would you word it? It makes more intuitive sense to me to >>>answer 'y' to create something special and 'n' to do nothing, than the >>>other way around. >> >>Something like: >> >>"Discard breakpoint, rather than mark it pending?" >> >>is a guess. > > > That's why I don't want to reverse the question - I find that really > unintuitive. Perhaps it's just me. > > >>The real problem here is with batch scripts, the change breaks existing >>script behavior (which is never a good thing). >> >>How about this, we introduce: >> nquery() >> yquery() >>where the default (batch mode, and when return is pressed is n/y >>respectively). We'd need the language police to look over the interface >>but should otherwize be ok. > > > Works for me. > Ok, please review the attached patches. gdb/ChangeLog: 2004-02-19 Jeff Johnston * defs.h (nquery, yquery): New prototypes. * breakpoint.c (break_command_1): Use new nquery interface. * utils.c (defaulted_query, nquery, yquery): New functions. gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2004-02-19 Jeff Johnston * lib/gdb.exp (gdb_breakpoint): Update query string to match new nquery format. * gdb.base/pending.exp: Ditto.