From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 491 invoked by alias); 2 May 2008 15:33:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 480 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2008 15:33:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from blu139-omc1-s18.blu139.hotmail.com (HELO blu139-omc1-s18.blu139.hotmail.com) (65.55.175.158) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 May 2008 15:32:48 +0000 Received: from BLU136-W30 ([65.55.162.183]) by blu139-omc1-s18.blu139.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 2 May 2008 08:32:45 -0700 Message-ID: From: Bjarke Viksoe To: Subject: FW: [MI] -break-delete with several breakpoints Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 15:33:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 > Vladimir wrote: > I've noticed that right now, both -break-delete and -break-disable > commands accept several breakpoint ids, like: > -break-disable 1 2 3 > This behaviour comes almost by accident, and is not documented > anywhere. The question is -- should we document it and add tests, or > should we declare this behaviour does not exist? I would disallow it. > Keep it simple ;-) It's documented alright... -break-disable ( breakpoint )+ Notice the + character in the MI definition! I'm using this behaviour. Other IDEs would be too, I'd imagine. bjarke _________________________________________________________________ Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger=A0 http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=3Den-us&sourc= e=3Dwlmailtagline