Re: fix break, not add future-break

[Jim Ingham <jingham at apple dot com>]

We talked about this a bit here.  Jason was worried that users might 
find getting an extra prompt when they just mistyped annoying.  It is 
certainly a pretty big change in UI, and will be jarring to old hands 
for a while.  On the other hand, I kind of like this better than having 
to remember to type another command to get shared-library breakpoints 
to take.

Working with programmatic interfaces is different, however.  We added a 
-f flag to -break-insert to turn on the "future" behavior.  I think 
calling it out explicitly like this is better for a programmatic 
interface, since for a driving program it is better to be able to ask 
for exactly what you want, than asking for something more general and 
then having to deal modally with the possible responses to a more 
general request...

Jim

On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 12:36  PM, 
gdb-digest-help at sources dot redhat dot com wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:13:33 -0500
> > From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
> >
> > I'd like to propose that break be modified so that it behaves 
> > something
> > like:
> >
> > 	(gdb) break printf.c:printf
> > 	File "printf.c" not currently known, set breakpoint anyway?
> >
> > And then later:
> >
> > 	(gdb) c
> > 	Loading shared library libc.so.
> > 	Enabling breakpoint "printf.c:printf" at ....
--
Jim Ingham                                   jingham at apple dot com
Developer Tools
Apple Computer