Re: question about breakpoints

[Keith Seitz <kseitz at firetalk dot com>]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> 
> Fernando> Sorry Tom, I missed the fact that these two are not ever
> Fernando> printed.  In this case a new function would be in order.
> 
> I think converting the existing function and then adding new output to
> it is the best approach.
> 

I'm with Tom on this one. This is one of those really, really old
functions from the original gdbtk which has survived into this "new"
version. Its intent is to provide all the information there is about a
breakpoint.

I believe that this function should be extended to include the
information about the breakpoint, since this is the function's purpose.

Of course, there is an argument here to be made that we should
restructure gdbtk commands to look more like tcl commands, i.e.,
"breakpoint set", "breakpoint enable", "breakpoint disable", "breakpoint
info", etc. Just a thought. :-)

> Fernando> I thought you were going to save/reinsert breakpoints based
> Fernando> on the symbolic information rather than in the addresses.
> 
> Yes.  My understanding is that `addr_string' and `exp_string' are the
> original strings used by the user to set the breakpoint or expression
> (resp).  I say this because that is what the comments in breakpoint.h
> imply.  Am I wrong?

I believe that this is correct. This is exactly what you would want. (At
least, that is the way I remember it, too. I seem to recall that this
bit me once or twice while trying to do something.)

My $0.02.
Keith