Re: [patch/ob] not_a_breakpoint -> not_a_sw_breakpoint

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:53:09PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:43:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>>Well, throw/catch events will be (haven't done it yet) implemented
> >>>using (some kind of) breakpoints.  Whether they will be in the table or
> >>>not is a different question.  I personally think that the way
> >>>catchpoints are handled at the moment is all wrong, since it relies on
> >>>the to_wait method to determine what event occured; which is perfect
> >>>for event reporting mechanisms and awful for events synthesized by
> >>>breakpoints.
> >
> >>
> >>The software single step breakpoint, has a similar problem.  One theory 
> >>is to use the breakpoint table for them as well.  The current interfaces 
> >>definitly do not lend themselves to such a model.
> >
> >
> >Hmmmmmmmm.  I have some ideas how this would be done.  I'll stew on it
> >and bring it up after 5.3 branches.  It would involve doing great
> >violence to handle_inferior_event, unfortunately; but sometimes we've
> >got to take risks...
> 
> It can't be less violent than my patch to separate bpstop_stop_status() 
> from the code that prints the stop status.

No, probably rather worse, I'd guess - but that's pretty impressive. 
Also queued for post-5.3?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer