From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13045 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 19:09:05 -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 13037 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 19:09:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 19:09:04 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A7JgG-0003Zw-4r; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:09:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Message-ID: <20031008190904.GC13579@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <4038-Wed08Oct2003195612+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4038-Wed08Oct2003195612+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:56:13PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:55:34 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > On the infrastructure side we will be able to have an "impl_breakpoint" > > (short for implementation; better naming ideas?) > > It looks to me that your impl_breakpoint is simply a linked list of > addresses we watch and a few flags. So perhaps we shouldn't introduce > two kinds of breakpoints, but instead call that list something > entirely different, like bp_data (for ``breakpoint data''). Each of them is a breakpoint, though. Well, that or a watchpoint or a catchpoint of some type. The user's request has triggered the creation of N actual breaking-points. I'm not sure. > > Thoughts? Comments on the overall approach? OK? > > I think the direction is correct. Thanks for raising the issue and > for working on it. > > Putting on my documentation maintainer's hat, may I suggest that this > project also tries to improve the documentation of our breakpoint > handling in gdbint.texinfo, at least to some degree? IMHO it's a > shame that breakpoints, _the_ most central facility of any debugger, > are documented so poorly. Let me take a look over what's there. No promises :) but when a bit more has been done, I'll try to find time to revise it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer