From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24350-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2337 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 20:14:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 2318 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 20:14:40 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:14:39 +0000
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) 	by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) 	with ESMTP id HXH05009; 	Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:14:25 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-152-98.inter.net.il [80.230.152.98]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id CSO06085 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:14:19 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:16:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u8xs9hhek.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>, ghost@cs.msu.su
CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20060217200712.GB30145@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:07:12 -0500)
Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <dt4ofp$60k$1@sea.gmane.org> <20060217153211.GA21402@nevyn.them.org> <dt4r7g$h69$1@sea.gmane.org> <ulkw9hj1y.fsf@gnu.org> <20060217194426.GA28988@nevyn.them.org> <ufymhhi81.fsf@gnu.org> <17398.11182.747232.774924@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060217200712.GB30145@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:07:12 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> This just doesn't scale.  Now the user places two breakpoints at foo
> (via complicated scripts, say) and one of them has continue in its
> commands list.  The user could make the exact same argument to complain
> that we "didn't stop".

There's no end to this.  A breakpoint could have in its comand list a
command to delete the other breakpoint at this location; now what?

GDB gives users enough rope to hang themselves, so I don't think we
should consider situations when they do.  We should, however, do
reasonable things for simple situations where users expect us to do
those reasonable things, and there are no complications to do what
they expect.  I think.