From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24382-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20726 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2006 17:50:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 20718 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2006 17:50:39 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:50:38 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-165-4.inter.net.il [84.228.165.4]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id DOZ07468 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:50:24 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:33:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ufymgwo7z.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20060218174215.GA24047@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:42:15 -0500)
Subject: Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <ufymhhi81.fsf@gnu.org> <17398.11182.747232.774924@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060217200712.GB30145@nevyn.them.org> <17398.12047.624911.347942@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060217202047.GC30881@nevyn.them.org> <17398.15554.431196.208031@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20060217211942.GA609@nevyn.them.org> <uslqggbxm.fsf@gnu.org> <20060218154653.GB21241@nevyn.them.org> <uhd6wws99.fsf@gnu.org> <20060218174215.GA24047@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/msg00242.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:42:15 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:46:53 -0500
> > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > > Cc: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>, ghost@cs.msu.su,
> > > 	gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > > 
> > > Do we want to uniformly present watchpoints as after-the-store, as
> > > a least common denominator and for consistency?
> > 
> > Don't we do this already?  I thought we did.
> 
> Yes, sorry I was unclear - that is what we do (although I think the
> implementation could use a little improvement, based on past
> conversations on this list).  Just wanted to present that there are,
> in fact, alternatives.

Well, FWIW, I think what we do is The Right Thing, and not just for
consistency's sake.