Re: 'conditions' on a breakpoint should default like 'commands'

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

I couldn't agree more.

Fernando


Jason Molenda wrote:
> 
> The "commands" command in gdb will assume the most recently set
> breakpoint if no breakpoint number is provided.  The "condition"
> command in gdb requires a breakpoint number.  This seems unnecessarily
> inconsistent.  My best guess as to the thinking of the original
> implementer was that users could set the condition on the breakpoint
> line directly, so they wouldn't often be putting a condition on
> the bp right after setting it.
> 
> The difference in breakpoints.c is minor; commands_command reads
> 
>   p = arg;
>   bnum = get_number (&p);
> 
> Whereas condition_command reads
> 
>   if (arg == 0)
>     error_no_arg ("breakpoint number");
> 
>   p = arg;
>   bnum = get_number (&p);
> 
> I checked back through the gdb v3.0 era releases, and these commands
> have always behaved this way--I can't find any historial reason
> for them to act differently.  It was the case that get_number () didn't
> exist back then, so maybe that helped to shroud the similarity of the
> two commands.
> 
> I'd like to make condition default to the most recent breakpoint
> if no argument is provided.  If anyone agrees with this, I'll supply
> a patch to the code, the documentation, and a test case.  I don't
> see this as causing problems for existing users -- typing "cond 5"
> will still set a breakpoint on bp #5; the only difference is that
> if you type "cond", gdb will do something whereas it used to return
> an error message.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jason