From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14488 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 19:11:57 -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 14474 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 19:11:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 19:11:56 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A7Jj2-0003fN-CC; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:11:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [1/8] - define impl_breakpoint Message-ID: <20031008191156.GD13579@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031008170233.GA9013@nevyn.them.org> <3099-Wed08Oct2003195835+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3099-Wed08Oct2003195835+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:58:35PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:02:33 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > + > > +enum impl_bptype > > +{ > > + impl_bp_software_breakpoint, > > + impl_bp_hardware_breakpoint, > > + impl_bp_hardware_watchpoint, > > + impl_bp_other /* Miscellaneous... */ > > +}; > > Why did you decide to leave the subclasses of hardware watchpoints > (read, access, and write) in the parent structure, instead of moving > that distinction here? That seems like you are spreading related > information between several places instead of having it in a single > place. I'm actually planning to move it to the impl_breakpoint. I haven't done it yet because I wanted to postpone watchpoints until the one-to-many support was in place. For instance, according to my interpretation, rwatch **foo should be: a read watchpoint on the address *foo a write watchpoint on the address foo, in case it is moved. I don't know if that matches GDB's current interpreation of such expressions, though - I haven't looked yet. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer