This is the mail archive of the gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

mi/1663: -break-info response is ambiguous


>Number:         1663
>Category:       mi
>Synopsis:       -break-info response is ambiguous
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Sat Jun 05 19:58:00 UTC 2004
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     nicknospam@optonline.net
>Release:        gdb 6.0 & 6.1
>Organization:
>Environment:
i686-pc-linux-gnu
>Description:
The -break-info command responds with the same format as -break-list.  This causes a rift between the actual contents of 'BreakpointTable'.  With -break-list, the entire breakpoint table is displayed (which is correct IMO).  With -break-info, only the specified breakpoint(s) are listed in the table.  
This ambiguity reduces effectiveness from a program wrapper perspective.  Assuming no prior knowledge of commands issued, a program has no way of determining the completeness of breakpoints listed in a 'BreakpointTable' response.
It would be much better IMO if -break-info returned individual 'bkpt' fields, just like -break-insert does.
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]