Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints

[Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>]

Paul Koning wrote:

> Ok, my point is that we can do better.  Your point (previous message)
> is that you don't think what I'm suggesting is better.  I guess we'll
> just disagree on that.  I prefer to tell users a store happened in a
> source line that contains an assignment, rather than a source line
> that doesn't.  The fact that some hardware can't do that doesn't alter
> that -- we don't and shouldn't just offer lowest common denominator.

You are NOT telling the user that, the current location is the
point at which you stopped. I think it would be actively confusing
to pretend you stopped at the store when you did not.

Fudging the current location seems wrong to me.

It *is* a good idea to tell the user where the store was
if you know, but that's completely different from the
information as to where you stopped.

In some hardware debuggers, you can stop several instructions
past the store, but you know where the store is. It would
be really confusing to a user to list variables and see that
assignments past the supposed current location have already
occurred in unoptimized code.