From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13664 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2007 23:39:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 13655 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2007 23:39:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:39:38 +0000 Received: from zps36.corp.google.com (zps36.corp.google.com [172.25.146.36]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id lADNdYBK002724 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:39:34 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ugdo38.prod.google.com [10.66.141.38]) by zps36.corp.google.com with ESMTP id lADNdWA7004648 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:39:32 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id o38so218321ugd for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:39:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.115.2 with SMTP id s2mr1139591ugm.1194997171759; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:39:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.21.14 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:39:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:39:00 -0000 From: "Douglas Evans" To: "Eli Zaretskii" Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoint locations Cc: "Vladimir Prus" , gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <18233.63439.953202.586908@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2 On Nov 13, 2007 2:18 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:28:15 +0300 > > > > > (gdb) d 1.1 > > > warning: bad breakpoint number at or near '1.1' > > > > Well, you can't really delete a location -- if breakpoint expression > > corresponds to 20 addresses, that's the way it is -- you cannot delete > > some of those addresses from the program ;-) > > Sorry, I don't understand why; can you please elaborate? Removing a > breakpoint instruction from a specific address is a primitive > operation of the target back-end; why can't we use it for that single > address? I think it's a question of how much complexity one wants here. AIUI, the breakpoint is represented as source+line. One would have to augment that to mean source+line+except-this (I think). Also, it's not just "delete 1.1". It's also condition, commands, and ignore. I'm not suggesting all (or any) should be supported, just that we shouldn't tackle any of them without thinking the big picture through at least a bit. As of today, in the context of `delete, condition, commands, ignore' there is just one breakpoint with N sub-breakpoints (so to speak). [AIUI of course.]