From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28782 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2005 15:22:35 -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 28717 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2005 15:22:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Feb 2005 15:22:28 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j17FMSB8007244 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:22:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-85.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.85]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j17FMRO28604; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:22:27 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493AE7D79; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:22:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <420787A3.2070605@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:14:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Rossi Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: fullname descriptor with -break-list References: <16902.30786.705993.121669@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050206210637.GB19609@white> <16902.45534.858929.941689@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050207134829.GA21985@white> In-Reply-To: <20050207134829.GA21985@white> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 >>-exec-run >>^running >>(gdb) >>*stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit",bkptno="1",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x080486e2",func="myprint",args=[{name="i",value="0"},{name="j",value="0"}],file="myprint.c",line="5"} > > > O wow, it would be great to add this. I've been working on the MI > testsuite lately, and after I'm done with that, I'll most likely end up > wanting this exact feature. Otherwise, I'll have to call > -file-list-exec-source-file every time instead. > > >>I seem to recall there was some discussion about this earlier but I didn't >>follow the thread closely. Can somebody please tell me what the outcome was? > > > I don't recall anything about this. Sorry. The way that message is generated is a massive kludge - so the underlying code could do with a cleanup - separate the code determining why the process stopped from the code printing the stop reason. Andrew