From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6696 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 18:23:12 -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 6689 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 18:23:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 18:23:11 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id AC596D2D29; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jim Blandy Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Message-ID: <20031008182309.GI933@gnat.com> References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00232.txt.bz2 > How about "user breakpoints" and "machine breakpoints"? "How Debuggers Work" define "logical" and "physical". But I really prefer Jim's proposal, especially the "user" one, as it sounds clearer than "logical". > In my ideal world, you'd get an explanation for why each address was > chosen, when it's not obvious: > > (gdb) info break > Num Type Disp Enb Address What > 1 breakpoint keep y 0x08048354 in foo::foo (in-charge) at hello.c:8 > 0x08048364 in foo::foo (not-in-charge) at hello.c:8 > (gdb) This looks very good to me. (although it's also fine not to provide the explanation, it's not as important as seeing all the machine breakpoints). -- Joel