This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:22:22PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:12:07PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> >>+ if (so_name
> >>+ && !strcmp (so_name, solib->so_name))
> >>+ {
> >>+ b->enable_state = bp_shlib_disabled;
> >>+ /* At this point, we cannot rely on remove_breakpoint
> >>+ succeeding so we must mark the breakpoint as not inserted
> >>+ to prevent future errors occurring in remove_breakpoints. */
> >>+ b->loc->inserted = 0;
> >>+ if (!disabled_shlib_breaks)
> >>+ {
> >>+ target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
> >>+ warning ("Temporarily disabling unloaded shared library
> >>breakpoints:");
> >>+ }
> >>+ disabled_shlib_breaks = 1;
> >>+ warning ("breakpoint #%d ", b->number);
> >
> >
> >I think you're missing a space after the colon, in the first warning.
> >Also, this use of multiple warning() statements is neither i18n
> >friendly nor MI/GUI friendly - you may get a separate dialog box for
> >each. I believe other places do this with sprintf; still not 100% i18n
> >friendly, but avoids the MI/GUI problems. I can't find an example
> >offhand.
> >
>
> What you do want to see so I don't waste my time on this. As you already
> know, this routine was copied from the routine which disables shared
> library breakpoints in breakpoint.c. Is it sufficient to just issue the
> warning that I am temporarily disabling unloaded shared library breakpoints
> and not spell out each breakpoint in turn? I can see this as really
> annoying and pointless to an end-user if there are hundreds or thousands of
> breakpoints.
That's a good idea. How about this?
target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
warning ("Temporarily disabling breakpoints for unloaded shared library \"%s\",
so_name);
--
Daniel Jacobowitz