From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24268 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2003 15:36:12 -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 24257 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2003 15:36:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2003 15:36:10 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1A9RDW-0002hy-6r; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:36:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [1/8] - define impl_breakpoint Message-ID: <20031014153609.GA10360@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031008170233.GA9013@nevyn.them.org> <20031014012958.GA6118@nevyn.them.org> <3F8C16CA.7040304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F8C16CA.7040304@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:31:22AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >Thanks, I like it. I'll adapt it into the next version. > > Daniel, > > This is like coding standards - if there is an existing convention (even > if you personally find it a bit sucky) adopt it. Especially when there > there's a preference towards it by a number of developers. It saves > hassles trying to explain this over and over and over later. I have very little idea what you're talking about. I was thanking Jim for some explanatory text of what the new kind of breakpoint is. The text is appropriate whatever we call it - forcing someone to know the existing conventions isn't OK for this terminology especially when the "existing conventions" are so unclear. Are you complaining about my choice of what to call the two kinds of breakpoints? If so, I disagree strongly that the one book constitutes existing convention, especially when its choice is unclear to half of the GDB developers who have responded. And relatively few people who will read this code will have read said book; and (ooh, my personal opinion is showing again, gasp) I'm not all that impressed with said book anyway, and it seems many others aren't either from the reviews I've read. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer