This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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]

Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints

From: Andrew STUBBS <andrew dot stubbs at st dot com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
Cc: drow at false dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:44:00 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints
References: <452CF534.4060209@st.com> <20061011135545.GA26060@nevyn.them.org> <200610112206.k9BM68ml030875@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>

Mark Kettenis wrote:

(gdb) b main if 1
Breakpoint 1 at 0x439ee0
(gdb) b main if 2
Note: breakpoint 1 also set at pc 0x439ee0.
Breakpoint 2 at 0x439ee0

If that's right, why is similar for threads wrong?  That's just a
different condition.  And the wording is such that it's perfectly
correct.

I don't see the problem either.

It isn't a problem, as such. It just isn't useful - the breakpoints do not clash and we can easily identify that they do not. We don't print other breakpoints when we set a breakpoint, why print these?

Useless stuff should be cut away.

Andrew Stubbs

References:
- [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints
  - From: Andrew STUBBS
- Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints
  - From: Mark Kettenis

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