From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14476 invoked by alias); 2 May 2018 16:33:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 14456 invoked by uid 89); 2 May 2018 16:33:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=her X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2018 16:32:58 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDugX-0007qT-Fg for gdb@sourceware.org; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:32:57 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50294) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDugX-0007qP-Bb; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:32:53 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4818 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fDugW-00072q-Or; Wed, 02 May 2018 12:32:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 16:33:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83po2eow5u.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Pedro Alves on Wed, 2 May 2018 17:15:32 +0100) Subject: Re: Multiple locations and breakpoints confusion. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <0627f9db-dc6e-ec75-bfd4-b3cb3cdc1251@redhat.com> <8a04e8e4-b08e-32d0-b44b-efc6f3917878@redhat.com> <83y3h2oztv.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 > Cc: pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 17:15:32 +0100 > > > If disabling the parent disables all of its children, why not show all > > of the children disabled when the parent is disabled? IOW, why can't > > we make the y/n display use the same logic as the one used when > > deciding whether a breakpoint at a particular location is disabled? > That loses information, i.e., one can't tell which ones were explicitly > disabled, and will be re-enabled. Providing this information is not the main purpose of that display. The main purpose is to accurately describe the current state of affairs. > Really can't see why that's better and more desirable. I guess we disagree, then. My problem with all your alternative suggestions is that they all are riddles, to some extent: the interpretation of "y.n", "y(n)", etc. is impossible without reading the manual. Which is a regression of sorts, because the simple "y" or "n" display is immediately understandable by just looking at it. > And it'd still be confusing to someone -- "why is it that when I > disable the parent, all its locations show as disabled, but when I > enable the parent, only some locations show as enabled, why not > all?" would then be a legitimate question. And the answer is that the user actually asked for that by her actions. So I have no problem with this difficulty.