From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7948 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2012 05:07:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 7936 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2012 05:07:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:07:10 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiJ46-0003KZ-Nk; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:07:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:07:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: marc.khouzam@ericsson.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20120104035128.GP2742@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Wed, 4 Jan 2012 07:51:28 +0400) Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints on lines that don't exist Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20120104035128.GP2742@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 07:51:28 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: "'gdb@sourceware.org'" > > I think that the idea is that another objfile, typically a shared > library, might appear later on. If that shared library has a file > where this line number is valid, we want the breakpoint to include > this location. Does that make sense? Not to me, FWIW. At the very least, we should have asked a different question than we ask in the "normal" pending-breakpoint use case.