From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8186 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 21:40:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8179 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 21:40:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 21:40:52 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h98LepM17206 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:40:51 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h98Lepc08666 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:40:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h98LeodT022360 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:40:51 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 634A02CCB2; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:51:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16260.34548.308489.550984@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:40:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] In-Reply-To: <20031008211149.GA17074@nevyn.them.org> References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <3F846B04.2070801@redhat.com> <20031008203032.GA15860@nevyn.them.org> <3F847CF4.10009@redhat.com> <20031008211149.GA17074@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:09:08PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > >>Daniel, did you mention somewhere that the debugger book used "logical" > > >>and "physical" breakpoint? If it does, it might be better to adopt its > > >>terminology here. > > > > > > > > >No, but Joel did. I'd rather not though; the name doesn't make as much > > >sense to me as Jim's suggestion, and I don't think that the one book > > >(even if it's close to the only book...) counts as enough of a > > >precedent to set terminology. > > > > I know of two books, the other is the GDB internals. > > > > I find "machine" is too vague and non-commital while "physical" strongly > > suggests suggests that it is tangable or concrete. "user" vs "logical" > > is well, whatever (although "physical" and "logical" tend to go together > > giving a familar paring). > > I don't find "machine" particularly vague. On the other hand, I find > "physical" inaccurate - doubly so for software (i.e. not hardware) > breakpoints. > > I'll think about it some more. abstract/actual or virtual/actual? elena > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer