From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47674 invoked by alias); 2 May 2018 16:15:41 -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 47572 invoked by uid 89); 2 May 2018 16:15:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Zaretskii, Hx-languages-length:1218, zaretskii, letter X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2018 16:15:35 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C692B7D843; Wed, 2 May 2018 16:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7EF2166BAD; Wed, 2 May 2018 16:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Multiple locations and breakpoints confusion. To: Eli Zaretskii References: <0627f9db-dc6e-ec75-bfd4-b3cb3cdc1251@redhat.com> <8a04e8e4-b08e-32d0-b44b-efc6f3917878@redhat.com> <83y3h2oztv.fsf@gnu.org> Cc: pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 16:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83y3h2oztv.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 On 05/02/2018 04:13 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Pedro Alves >> Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 20:32:28 +0100 >> >> IMO, it's working as intended. > > I agree that it's working as intended, but I think the UI is > confusing. > >> Maybe it'd help if we would come up with some concise >> way to display a location as enabled-but-note-parent-is-disabled >> differently, like with a different letter or some extra character >> or something like that. > > 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. Really can't see why that's better and more desirable. 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. Thanks, Pedro Alves