From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11762 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2005 22:13:24 -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 11726 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2005 22:13:19 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:13:19 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p25-tnt2.snap.net.nz [202.124.108.25]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC935BAB89; Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:13:15 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4D8CE62A99; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:52:52 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17096.24115.377394.289042@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:13:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations In-Reply-To: <20050703170255.GD13811@nevyn.them.org> References: <17053.24737.153388.915345@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050601113004.GC15414@white> <17054.10607.109160.333076@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603190856.GB32722@nevyn.them.org> <17056.56022.36723.292491@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603235923.GA9992@nevyn.them.org> <17057.7583.990091.951816@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050703170255.GD13811@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2 > Having reread the discussion I would like to ask you what your goal is > with this patch. You don't use this annotation, and you've said that > it is very awkward to use because of the amount of output it produces. > Why should we fix it (as opposed to garbage collecting it) if no one > has missed it? The original authors must have seen a need when they created these annotations. I was just being conservative because there hasn't been a release of Emacs to test my code fully. > The comments in mention() suggest that at one time, GDB was trying to > move away from breakpoints_changed to a more specific set of hooks. > But now the hooks are more or less dead, and to get full mileage out of > them they're going to need a redesign. So maybe we should just delete > all three hooks, and replace the two that annotations use with > calls to breakpoints_changed. Yes that looks a lot simpler. If you are agreeable to me fixing it in the first place, I will do that. Nick