This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ...
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:38:39 +0300
- Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ...
- References: <20110505162855.GA2546@adacore.com> <m3oc3gx48l.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83bozgmhil.fsf@gnu.org> <m3oc2pxjds.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83k4dcd1bh.fsf@gnu.org> <m3r56bdoh9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m362nmarbv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83fwmpqjem.fsf@gnu.org> <m31uy4tu2y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:18:13 -0600
>
> Eli> (As for the command name, I'd suggest "location N LINESPEC", btw.)
>
> I wanted a way to also change the 'silent' flag.
And I wanted it to be consistent with how we modify breakpoints today,
once they are set ("conditions", "commands", "enable", etc.).
I'm okay with having one command for that, but then we should lump all
those into it, too, for consistency.
> It occurred to me last night that we could use "set" instead of
> "modify":
>
> set breakpoint N location LINESPEC
> set breakpoint N silent [on|off]
Also possible (although currently we use that for minor options), but
again, we should then add command, conditions, etc. to that as well.
> Eli> You say nothing about watchpoints. Will they also use the same
> Eli> infrastructure?
>
> I don't think it is necessary. "watch" doesn't take a linespec
> argument.
But they can be ambiguous as well.