Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 07:03:41PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:48 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> > 
> > From a user interface perspective, I got a really strong negative
> > pushback the last time I tried to add a switch to any GDB command.
> 
> Any pointers to messages where such pushback could be seen?  I'm
> curious what could be the motivation.

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00499.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00612.html
and others.

I still agree with:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00608.html

but I lost that argument.

> Another possibility would be to have 2 commands: "info breakpoints"
> which only shows one breakpoint for each user breakpoint, and "info
> all-breakpoints", which shows all of them.  We already have a
> precedent for such an arrangement with "info registers" vs "info
> all-registers".
> 
> Anyway, going to the maint-land is something I think we should avoid
> in this case, as the breakpoints not shown by default are interesting
> not only for GDB maintainers.

Michael Snyder also likes this, so all-breakpoints it is (will be). 
This will include multi-address breakpoints but not GDB internal ones
like maint info breakpoints.

What to do for MI I have no idea.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer