From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18163 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2012 08:08:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 18140 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2012 08:08:47 -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 08:08:30 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiLta-0003Hu-Ja; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:08:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: marc.khouzam@ericsson.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20120104071658.GR2742@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:16:58 +0400) Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints on lines that don't exist Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20120104035128.GP2742@adacore.com> <20120104071658.GR2742@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/msg00004.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:16:58 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: marc.khouzam@ericsson.com, gdb@sourceware.org > > (gdb) b foo.c:100 > No line 100 in file "foo.c". > Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n > > I find that the error message is precise and complete. Isn't the following at least slightly better? (gdb) b foo.c:100 No line 100 in file "foo.c". Make breakpoint pending on future load of shared library containing "foo.c" where this line is valid? (y or [n]) n