From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7037 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2006 15:48:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 7028 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2006 15:48:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:48:11 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FJuhX-0007hG-BW for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:47:47 +0100 Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:47:47 +0100 Received: from ghost by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:47:47 +0100 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: MI: changing breakpoint location Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20060316154357.GC30980@brasko.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.8.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi wrote: >> At the moment, the MI interface does not allow one to change location of >> breakpoint, say to move breakpoint from main.cpp:9 to main.cpp:11. >> CLI does not support this either, but I'm interested in MI. >> >> Was this an explicit design decision, or it just happened this way? The >> use case when it matters if when, in KDevelop, user edits the field of >> breakpoint table with the location. >> >> Now, I have to delete the old breakpoint and create the new one, which is >> workable, but not convenient. How about adding 'change breakpoint >> location' functionality to MI? > > Hi Volodya, > > My initial opinion is that this does not make to much sense. The 2 > different breakpoint really have nothing to do with each other. Hi Bob, well, at the very least they have the same condition, enable flag, ignore count and maybe breakpoint commands. The idea is to change only location and leave the breakpoint otherwise identical. > I would think it could be possible to add a new MI command that would > allow you to arbitrarily delete, add or modify (enable/disable) as > many breakpoints as you want. I think this would be a little more > general purpose. You mean, command that applies the same change to a list of breakpoint? I'm not sure, this does not seem to be helpful in my case. - Volodya