Re: PATCH: Remove dead code, clear breakpoint ignore counts?

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Tuesday 14 October 2008 19:32:00, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
> > I think I stared at this one time too many.
> >
> > What do you think of the attached?  Would anyone miss this?  There's
> > no way the user can request to not show hit counts, so, this is dead
> > code.
> >   
> Heh, I can't even remember why it seemed like there was any interest in 
> conditionalizing; perhaps because the hit counts were a new feature and 
> we thought users would want to be able to go back to the old behavior. 
> In any case, I think by now there is consensus that hit counts are good 
> to display. :-)

Seems like it.  :-)  I guess I wasn't that clear, but the actual code
that initialy bothered me was the clearing the *ignore* counts in
generic_mourn_inferior, or better, the comment there that I must have read a
hundred times already by now, although it's dead code.

Just curious, do people think that it's useful to clear the hit
count automatically at all, considering that we do it on "run" but not
on "attach" or "target remote"?  I can't seem to make up my mind
on it.  It's still logicaly the same breakpoint across runs, so it
could make sense to not do so.

> 
> Hit counts are going to get a little messy for multi-process, because 
> each inferior could have a different hit count, and it seems more useful 
> to have a per-inferior hit count than an aggregate over all the 
> inferiors to which the breakpoint applies.
> 

Right, that would mean storing a hit count per-breakpoint location as well
as per-breakpoint, it seems.  Same for ignore counts.  I'm sure there's
a user out there who would find that useful for breakpoints with multiple
locations in the single-inferior case too.  :-)

-- 
Pedro Alves