Re: [PATCH 0/8] Fix missing MI =breakpoint-deleted notifications

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> writes:

> On 2023-02-20 2:13 p.m., Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> This series all sprang from a single sentence in this patch review:
>> 
>>   https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-February/196560.html
>> 
>> In this patch (adding inferior specific breakpoints), at one point, I
>> changed a breakpoints number to zero.  Pedro asks the very good question: 
>> 
>>  Doesn't this mess up MI breakpoint deleted notifications?
>> 
>> Clearly what I wrote was wrong.  But, confession: I copied the code in
>> question from the code to handle thread-specific breakpoints.  And if
>> Pedro's point was true for my inferior-speicifc b/p, then it must be
>> true for thread-specific b/p too, which means we have a bug.
>> 
>> Patch #1 is a trivial drive by clean up.
>> 
>> Patch #2 is an interesting issue I ran into relating to the MI output
>> while writing tests for this issue.  This patch is worth a review
>> because I'm proposing a slight change to the MI output.
>> 
>> Patches #3 to #7 are just testsuite cleanup.  There's no GDB changes
>> in here.  This is all about making it easier for me to write the tests
>> in the last patch.  You can probably skip these if you're short on
>> review time.
>> 
>> Patch #8 is the important one.  This adjusts how we handle
>> thread-specific breakpoints to avoid the issue Pedro pointed out
>> above.  This fix was mostly trivial, except for a nasty knock-on
>> problem in the Python FinishBreakpoints code.
>
> I read the whole series and replied to a number of patches where I
> had something to say (though nothing major).  Those I didn't reply to LGTM as is.
>
> Thanks for doing this.  Appreciated.

I made the changes you suggested and pushed this series.

Thanks,
Andrew