From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17152 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2003 16:27:03 -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 17142 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2003 16:27:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2003 16:27:01 -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 h9EGR1M02792 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:27:01 -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 h9EGR1r04268 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:27:01 -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 h9EGR0Db012169 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:27:00 -0400 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 8A65B2C43F; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:38:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16268.9846.549821.262471@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:27:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] In-Reply-To: <20031014155126.GA10669@nevyn.them.org> References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <3F846B04.2070801@redhat.com> <3F85B4AC.7000000@redhat.com> <20031014013831.GB6118@nevyn.them.org> <3F8C18DD.3020508@redhat.com> <20031014155126.GA10669@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:40:13AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > >Does anyone have any other comments on these eight submitted patches? > > > > Ask michael. > > That's what I was doing :) > > > >So far, if I haven't lost any messages, the only disagreement is on > > >what to call impl_breakpoint: > > > user / implementation (my implementation) > > > user / machine (jim's suggestion) > > > logical / physical (how debuggers work) > > > virtual / actual (elena) > > > abstract / actual (elena) > > > > > >I think user / machine is the clearest of these. Others disagree with > > >me - no clear consensus. > > > > Pretty clear objections to your suggestions though: > > Eh, if you're going to count beans... > > > > > user/impl: > > + danielj > > Some objections but I don't recall. I'm still OK with this one because > implementation is the clearest way I can find to say what they are. > They're the breakpoints used to implement. I find it hard to connect "impl" to "implementation", my first though is that it means "implicit". That's my objection to 'impl'. > > > user/mach: > > + danielj, jimb > > - cagney > > - michael > > - joel? > > That's +joel and +carlton. I'm not sure whether Michael was > objecting, but rereading his message it seems plausible - Michael? > > > logical/physical > > + cagney > > + joel? > > Looks like -joel to me. And -danielj was pretty clear, I think. I > dislike this because logical/physical breakpoints says to me that one > of them is placed at a logical (virtual) address and the other at a > physical address. > > > virtual/actual > > + elena? > > abstract/actual > > + elena? > > Actual doesn't have the right ring to me, and neither does abstract, > but these are moving it the right direction. I could just use > user/lowlevel or highlevel/lowlevel, to muddy the waters further. > I looked at a thesaurus, and while there seem to be tons of synonyms for the 'high' level breakpoint concept, I found almost nothing to convey the low level idea. "Instantiation"? I was trying to borrow terms from the general language arena, where there are one-to-many relations with polymorphism. elena > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer