Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 08:03:41PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> How about rewriting the code so it'll produce something like
> 
>   Note: breakpoint(s) 1-9, 10-15, 21, 42 also set at pc 0x439ee0.
> 
> ?
> 
> Then we could have the variable list of breakpoint numbers produced
> as a string, and output that string with a format such as this:
> 
>   "Note: breakpoint(s) %s also set at pc 0x%x."
> 
> Actually, this would work for i18n even if we don't produce ranges of
> numbers but a plain "1, 2, 3, 4, ..." list, but ranges would compress
> some overly-long lists.
> 
> The `disabled' notification could be printed as a separate message.
> For example:
> 
>   Note: breakpoint(s) 1-9, 10-15, 21, 42 also set at pc 0x439ee0.
>   Note: breakpoint(s) 3, 11, 21 are disabled.
> 
> We could do something similar with "(thread %d)", for example produce
> a separate message for each thread.  I think that the current format
> becomes quite unreadable anyway when too many "disabled" and "thread
> N" parts are produced.
> 
> WDYT?

I think it's pretty clever.  I'll keep this solution in mind for the
future.

(I'm not planning to work on it myself, though - so far, a translated
GDB remains a theoretical exercise.)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery