Re: Breakpoint commands

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:03:59 +0100
>>>
>>> "You can use breakpoint commands to start your program up again.  Simply
>>> use the @code{continue} command, or @code{step}, or any other command
>>> that resumes execution.
>>>
>>> Any other commands in the command list, after a command that resumes
>>> execution, are ignored.  This is because any time you resume execution
>>> (even with a simple @code{next} or @code{step}), you may encounter
>>> another breakpoint---which could have its own command list, leading to
>>> ambiguities about which list to execute."
>> Thanks for reminding me.  We ought to display a warning when any
>> commands are used on the command list beyond those which resume.
> 
> FWIW, I very often would like to do this:
> 
>   int foo(int x) { ... }
> 
> break foo
> command 1
> print x
> finish  ## expecting it to print return of foo()
> continue
> 
> and that last 'continue' of course doesn't work, so I have to sit an
> press enter all day :-(
> 
> The argument of "you may encounter other breakpoints ..." is (IMHO) a
> weak one: I *don't* in fact encounter any other breakpoints.

I think the "argument" that you may encounter other breakpoints
is in part a rationalization.  In reality, it seems to me that
we just didn't want to make breakpoint command handling (which
would have included handle_inferior_event) recursive.


> It's probably not too difficult to implement "if you encounter any
> other breakpoint with its own command list while executing the
> original command list, the original command list is abandoned" policy.
> I'll open a feature request unless somebody explains why this would be
> a bad idea.
> 
> Thanks,