From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3259 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2003 01:38:38 -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 3242 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2003 01:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2003 01:38:37 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1A9E8u-0001dk-0v for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:38:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 01:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Message-ID: <20031014013831.GB6118@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> <3F85B4AC.7000000@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F85B4AC.7000000@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00438.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 12:19:08PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>On the infrastructure side we will be able to have an "impl_breakpoint" > >> > >>>> (short for implementation; better naming ideas?) for each location > >>>we are > >>>> watching using hardware watchpoints. This will simplify a lot of > >>>code. It > >>>> will also eventually become easier to object-orient our breakpoints. > >> > >> > >>> > >>>How about "user breakpoints" and "machine breakpoints"? > >> > >> > >> > >>I like it. > > > > > >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. > > We should think of what would be most meaningful to the user -- > not to us. What would "machine breakpoint" mean to a user? Does anyone have any other comments on these eight submitted patches? So far, if I haven't lost any messages, the only disagreement is on what to call impl_breakpoint: user / implementation (my implementation) user / machine (jim's suggestion) logical / physical (how debuggers work) virtual / actual (elena) abstract / actual (elena) I think user / machine is the clearest of these. Others disagree with me - no clear consensus. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer