Re: Inconsistency between cli and python breakpoints for ignore count tracking

[Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>]

Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

> On 11/13/2013 08:10 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a reasonable explanation for why we do ignore_count
>> tracking for python breakpoints (even with a "stop" method) but not
>> for breakpoints that have a cli condition that doesn't trigger?  The
>> inconsistency doesn't feel right to me.
>
> I agree.
>
>> ref: breakpoint.c:bpstat_check_breakpoint_conditions
>> 
>>   if (cond && value_is_zero)
>>     {
>>       bs->stop = 0;
>>     }
>>   else if (b->thread != -1 && b->thread != thread_id)
>>     {
>>       bs->stop = 0;
>>     }
>>   else if (b->ignore_count > 0)
>>     {
>
> I think this should be:
>
> -  else if (b->ignore_count > 0)
> +
> +  if (bs->stop && b->ignore_count > 0)
>
> Or whatever equivalent.  IOW, "ignore" only comes into play
> if otherwise the breakpoint would cause a stop.
>
>>       b->ignore_count--;
>>       bs->stop = 0;
>>       /* Increase the hit count even though we don't stop.  */
>>       ++(b->hit_count);
>>       observer_notify_breakpoint_modified (b);
>>     }

I will check this in then if there are no objections.
Thanks.

2013-11-14  Doug Evans  <xdje42@gmail.com>

	* breakpoint.c (bpstat_check_breakpoint_conditions): Check
	ignore_count after processing Python conditions as well as CLI
	conditions.

diff --git a/gdb/breakpoint.c b/gdb/breakpoint.c
index 5bfed9d..6694afd 100644
--- a/gdb/breakpoint.c
+++ b/gdb/breakpoint.c
@@ -5225,7 +5225,10 @@ bpstat_check_breakpoint_conditions (bpstat bs, ptid_t ptid)
     {
       bs->stop = 0;
     }
-  else if (b->ignore_count > 0)
+
+  /* If we still think we need to stop after processing the conditions,
+     check the ignore count.  */     
+  if (bs->stop && b->ignore_count > 0)
     {
       b->ignore_count--;
       bs->stop = 0;