From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29708 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2009 03:30:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 29693 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2009 03:30:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.247) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:30:37 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so281789anc.35 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:30:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.11.4 with SMTP id 4mr1823107tik.1.1233891033806; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:30:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06CB0F19@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF53@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <200902051225.41426.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090205224242.GA1306@caradoc.them.org> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint From: teawater To: Marc Khouzam Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com, Pedro Alves , Michael Snyder Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 I remove the line "make_breakpoint_silent" from finish_backward. Whant I got is: (gdb) reverse-finish &"reverse-finish\n" ~"Run back to call of #0 cool () at 1.c:16\n" ^running *running,thread-id="all" (gdb) ~"\n" ~"Breakpoint 0, cool () at 1.c:9\n" ~"9\t{\n" *stopped *running,thread-id="all" ~"main () at 1.c:25\n" ~"25\t b = cool ();\n" *stopped (gdb) Does it resolve your trouble? Actually, I am not very clear why you guys give silent breakpoints a lot of attention. I think the main issue is 2 "proceed" 2 "(gdb)". Hui On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 07:24, Marc Khouzam wrote: > From: Daniel Jacobowitz Thu 2/5/2009 5:42 PM >> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:29:26PM -0500, Marc Khouzam wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm curious as to the motivation behind silent breakpoints. >> > I'm trying to understand why a frontend would need to know >> > of a silent bp hit, but not a user? >> > For instance, in async mode, if a silent bp is used, >> > how would the user ever know it is hit? And if the user >> > need not know, why would a frontend? >> >> Mostly, they're for commands lists that automatically resume. For >> instance, if you want to increment a counter every time a breakpoint >> is hit, you might mark it as: >> >> silent >> commands >> set $i++ >> continue >> end >> >> What to do with MI notifications in this case, I don't know... > > In the scenario you mention, having a proper *stopped event for > silent bp would pretty much be unnoticed by the user thanks to the > *running event that immediately follows (the frontend would stop and > resume right away.) Same situation for the reverse-finish situation. > > What we have now is an empty *stopped event and that is not much > use for a frontend and would probably cause more confusion than good. > > So, based on Volodya's explanation (that I agree with), and Daniel's > explanation, it seems that there should be a *stopped event for > silent bp, as long as it is complete. Or at least that is what > I believe. > > Thanks for your explanations. > > Marc > >