From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9939 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 01:19:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 9916 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 01:19:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:19:10 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (246.61.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.61.246]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA683DA468; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:19:08 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F36C78FC6D; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:18:48 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18504.36980.288830.447468@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:19:00 -0000 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, ghost@cs.msu.su Subject: Re: [PATCH:MI] Use observers for breakpoints In-Reply-To: <20080605220528.GB3602@adacore.com> References: <18498.3436.91443.361769@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080603050818.GA19062@adacore.com> <18501.51738.226990.896238@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080605220528.GB3602@adacore.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.50.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 > I would still prefer it if you passed the breakpoint rather than > the breakpoint number. I'd rather not have to change the interface > later if the breakpoint ended up being needed. Sure, it's quite easy to do. > > breakpoint_create_event > > breakpoint_modify_event > > breakpoint_delete_event > > > > I don't know if there's much to be gained in differentiating between > > creating and modifying a breakpoint but it would certainly make sense > > to have two observers, breakpoints_changed and breakpoints_deleted, say. > > We can indeed start with 2 for now. OK, I'll do that. I'll submit another patch but it won't be anytime in the near future because I have to look more carefully at the output of each type of breakpoint command. As it breaks existing behaviour, the MI level would need to be bumped. It would make sense to do this at the same time as other similar pending changes, e.g., no-stop mode, argument parsing etc Perhaps we could aim for a release in which to do this, e.g. 7.0, in about a year's time? -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob