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 0/5] Return error code in get_number


Tom> It seems to me that an MI client already knows all the breakpoint
Tom> numbers.  I'm having trouble picturing the scenario where I'd want my MI
Tom> client to use a convenience variable instead.

Yao> This facilitates writing MI test cases that we don't have to hard-code
Yao> breakpoint numbers anymore.  Keith pointed this out in the review
Yao> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-01/msg00824.html and I think
Yao> that is good to have, so I write this patch series.  Can this justify
Yao> the changes in this series?

I am not opposed to it but I would like to gently push back a little.

It seems to me that if the proposed patches are there to help with a
deficiency in the test suite, then it would be better to fix the test
suite.  Say, by implementing a way to extract the breakpoint number and
make it available to the Tcl code.  Did you consider this approach?  And
if so what made you reject it?

Tom


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