From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24156 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 21:11:51 -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 24149 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 21:11:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 21:11:51 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A7Lb3-0004Ri-UT for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:11:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Message-ID: <20031008211149.GA17074@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <3F846B04.2070801@redhat.com> <20031008203032.GA15860@nevyn.them.org> <3F847CF4.10009@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F847CF4.10009@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:09:08PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>Daniel, did you mention somewhere that the debugger book used "logical" > >>and "physical" breakpoint? If it does, it might be better to adopt its > >>terminology here. > > > > > >No, but Joel did. I'd rather not though; the name doesn't make as much > >sense to me as Jim's suggestion, and I don't think that the one book > >(even if it's close to the only book...) counts as enough of a > >precedent to set terminology. > > I know of two books, the other is the GDB internals. > > I find "machine" is too vague and non-commital while "physical" strongly > suggests suggests that it is tangable or concrete. "user" vs "logical" > is well, whatever (although "physical" and "logical" tend to go together > giving a familar paring). I don't find "machine" particularly vague. On the other hand, I find "physical" inaccurate - doubly so for software (i.e. not hardware) breakpoints. I'll think about it some more. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer