[RFA]: Patch for pending breakpoints and scripts

[Jeff Johnston]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:31:23AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>>>>I'd rather not reverse the question.  We could check from_tty at the
>>>>>call site, and not set pending breakpoints if no tty...
>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, how would you word it?  It makes more intuitive sense to me to
>>>answer 'y' to create something special and 'n' to do nothing, than the
>>>other way around.
>>
>>Something like:
>>
>>"Discard breakpoint, rather than mark it pending?"
>>
>>is a guess.
> 
> 
> That's why I don't want to reverse the question - I find that really
> unintuitive.  Perhaps it's just me.
> 
> 
>>The real problem here is with batch scripts, the change breaks existing 
>>script behavior (which is never a good thing).
>>
>>How about this, we introduce:
>>	nquery()
>>	yquery()
>>where the default (batch mode, and when return is pressed is n/y 
>>respectively).  We'd need the language police to look over the interface 
>>but should otherwize be ok.
> 
> 
> Works for me.
> 

Ok, please review the attached patches.

gdb/ChangeLog:

2004-02-19  Jeff Johnston  <jjohnstn@redhat.com>

         * defs.h (nquery, yquery): New prototypes.
         * breakpoint.c (break_command_1): Use new nquery interface.
         * utils.c (defaulted_query, nquery, yquery): New functions.


gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2004-02-19  Jeff Johnston  <jjohnstn@redhat.com>

         * lib/gdb.exp (gdb_breakpoint): Update query string to match
         new nquery format.
         * gdb.base/pending.exp: Ditto.


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: query.patch
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/attachments/20040219/f8e13a56/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: query.testsuite.patch
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/attachments/20040219/f8e13a56/attachment-0001.ksh>