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

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> 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.

A syntax, using GDB's `/' qualifier vis:

	(gdb) info breakpoints/locations

works well.  In fact I can see a strong preference for the terse version:

	(gdb) info break/l

and that is even 1:2 characters shorter than:

	(gdb) info break --l
	(gdb) info break -l

Given that files are not involved (load/vma /lma), it also avoids 
immediatly CLI changes.

Andrew


> 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.