GNU bug report logs - #23470
Feature request: preserve edebug breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 23470 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 23470 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function
 definitions
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:21:09 +0200

When I re-evaluate (C-M-x) a function definition that has breakpoints,
all of them are lost. This is particularly annoying when breakpoints
are conditional, because now I not only have to recreate them
manually, but also specify all the conditions again.

Request: preserve existing breakpoints within definitions where
possible. One idea suggested on the devel list is to assign a marker
to each breakpoint and recreate it at the new marker position when
re-evaluating, as long as marker is not deleted (related to
bug#23468).

Message #10 received at 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x
 function definitions
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 12:41:47 +0200

Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev <at> gmail.com> writes:

> When I re-evaluate (C-M-x) a function definition that has breakpoints,
> all of them are lost. This is particularly annoying when breakpoints
> are conditional, because now I not only have to recreate them
> manually, but also specify all the conditions again.

Yes, that sounds useful.

> Request: preserve existing breakpoints within definitions where
> possible. One idea suggested on the devel list is to assign a marker
> to each breakpoint and recreate it at the new marker position when
> re-evaluating, as long as marker is not deleted (related to
> bug#23468).

Hm...  is that necessary?  The breakpoints are tied to the offsets...
Hm, yes, but I guess the offsets will change if you've added/removed
some forms, which would put the breakpoints at the wrong position.  So
markers seem like a better solution.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #13 received at 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: pogonyshev <at> gmail.com, 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x
 function definitions
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:11:09 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 12:41:47 +0200
> Cc: 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > When I re-evaluate (C-M-x) a function definition that has breakpoints,
> > all of them are lost. This is particularly annoying when breakpoints
> > are conditional, because now I not only have to recreate them
> > manually, but also specify all the conditions again.
> 
> Yes, that sounds useful.
> 
> > Request: preserve existing breakpoints within definitions where
> > possible. One idea suggested on the devel list is to assign a marker
> > to each breakpoint and recreate it at the new marker position when
> > re-evaluating, as long as marker is not deleted (related to
> > bug#23468).
> 
> Hm...  is that necessary?  The breakpoints are tied to the offsets...
> Hm, yes, but I guess the offsets will change if you've added/removed
> some forms, which would put the breakpoints at the wrong position.  So
> markers seem like a better solution.

If this request is implemented, how will the user be able to cancel
all the breakpoints in a function?

Message #16 received at 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x
 function definitions
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:11:34 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Hm...  is that necessary?  The breakpoints are tied to the offsets...
> Hm, yes, but I guess the offsets will change if you've added/removed
> some forms, which would put the breakpoints at the wrong position.  So
> markers seem like a better solution.

I've now implemented this in Emacs 27, but only lightly tested.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #23 received at 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: pogonyshev <at> gmail.com, 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x
 function definitions
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:14:35 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> If this request is implemented, how will the user be able to cancel
> all the breakpoints in a function?

Oh, that's a good point -- I didn't think about that.

Hm...  got any ideas?  :-)

Well, now the breakpoints are marked, at least, so you can remove them
manually with the `u' command, but perhaps that's not sufficient.

A new command to remove all breakpoints from a function, perhaps?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #26 received at 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: pogonyshev <at> gmail.com, 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x
 function definitions
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 14:31:02 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: pogonyshev <at> gmail.com,  23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:14:35 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > If this request is implemented, how will the user be able to cancel
> > all the breakpoints in a function?
> 
> Oh, that's a good point -- I didn't think about that.
> 
> Hm...  got any ideas?  :-)
> 
> Well, now the breakpoints are marked, at least, so you can remove them
> manually with the `u' command, but perhaps that's not sufficient.
> 
> A new command to remove all breakpoints from a function, perhaps?

Yes, a new command would be fine (assuming there isn't one already: I
don't consider myself an expert on debug commands, and only ever use a
small subset of them).

Message #29 received at 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: pogonyshev <at> gmail.com, 23470 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x
 function definitions
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:40:23 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Yes, a new command would be fine (assuming there isn't one already: I
> don't consider myself an expert on debug commands, and only ever use a
> small subset of them).

There wasn't one, so I've added it now.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.