Re: fix break, not add future-break

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
> Andrew> I'd like to propose that break be modified so that it behaves
> Andrew> something like:
> Andrew> 	(gdb) break printf.c:printf
> Andrew> 	File "printf.c" not currently known, set breakpoint anyway?
> 
> For Insight I think it would be useful to have a version of the
> command (or a flag, e.g. "break -future") that never asks.  I imagine
> that's true of other GUIs as well, though you'd have to ask those more
> familiar with them.
> 
> The scenario I'm thinking of is saving breakpoints.  Right now we save
> all the breakpoints in the session.  When reloading breakpoints, any
> breakpoint that isn't immediately valid is discarded.  This is a major
> problem for me (and presumably others), since I do a lot of debugging
> of code in shared libraries -- meaning that many of my breakpoints are
> lost from session to session.

Yep.  If the breakpoint is comming from a script, just assume `user 
knows best' and add them regardless.

> For breakpoints the user enters by hand, asking seems like a nice
> idea.
> 
> Tom

Andrew