Re: [PATCH 0/2] info breakpoints improvements

[Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>]

On 2022-05-24 15:03, Eli Zaretskii 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.

If you do that, then you're hiding information for no good reason, IMO.  It makes
it confusing, one would no longer be able to tell which locations would be enabled
once you re-enable the parent breakpoint.  You'd make "enable 3.2" seem to have
no effect on a disabled breakpoint, as "info break" would still show the location
as disabled.

> 
>>>   (gdb) info break 4.10
>>>
>>> will show the truth, no?
>>
>> You can't "info break" an individual location.
> 
> And you are certain we never will support that?

Of course not, but as usual, we can cross that bridge when to come to it.  I suspect
that if we did support that, we would still want to print the breakpoint row for
breakpoint 4 and then only location 10 (skipping all other locations), so you'd still
see the breakpoint's enable state, and other info.