From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21763 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 17:56:05 -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 21756 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 17:56:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 17:56:04 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17flKR-0004ov-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:56:07 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17flKs-0000lC-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:56:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/ob] not_a_breakpoint -> not_a_sw_breakpoint Message-ID: <20020816175633.GA2898@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D5D1C3E.8070203@ges.redhat.com> <20020816155016.GA27242@nevyn.them.org> <3D5D3787.30005@ges.redhat.com> <20020816173856.GA1417@nevyn.them.org> <3D5D39C7.8010203@ges.redhat.com> <20020816174730.GA2139@nevyn.them.org> <3D5D3C05.50407@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5D3C05.50407@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00434.txt.bz2 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