Re: [PATCH 0/2] info breakpoints improvements

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
> Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>,  Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 16:11:15 +0200
> 
> On Mai 24 2022, Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches wrote:
> 
> >> Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 14:50:01 +0100
> >> Cc: luis.machado@arm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
> >> 
> >> >> A location only breaks if it is enabled, _and_ its parent is enabled, so never.
> >> > 
> >> > That's what I thought.  But then why not "propagate" the "n" of the
> >> > disabled breakpoint to all of its locations?  
> >> 
> >> Because then when you re-enable the parent breakpoint, you'd have lost the enabled/disabled
> >> state of the individual locations.
> >
> > I don't understand why would that be lost.  I'm not proposing to
> > actually disable each location, I propose to _display_ them as
> > disabled in that case.
> 
> I think it would be better in that case to omit the column or display it
> as "-", to indicate that it is ignored right now.

That'd be also fine with me, thanks.  My point was only that showing
"y" there is misleading.