From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30010 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2003 15:51:28 -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 29997 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2003 15:51:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Oct 2003 15:51:26 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1A9RSI-0002pF-LT for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:51:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Message-ID: <20031014155126.GA10669@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> <20031014013831.GB6118@nevyn.them.org> <3F8C18DD.3020508@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F8C18DD.3020508@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00455.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:40:13AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >Does anyone have any other comments on these eight submitted patches? > > Ask michael. That's what I was doing :) > >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. > > Pretty clear objections to your suggestions though: Eh, if you're going to count beans... > > user/impl: > + danielj Some objections but I don't recall. I'm still OK with this one because implementation is the clearest way I can find to say what they are. They're the breakpoints used to implement. > user/mach: > + danielj, jimb > - cagney > - michael > - joel? That's +joel and +carlton. I'm not sure whether Michael was objecting, but rereading his message it seems plausible - Michael? > logical/physical > + cagney > + joel? Looks like -joel to me. And -danielj was pretty clear, I think. I dislike this because logical/physical breakpoints says to me that one of them is placed at a logical (virtual) address and the other at a physical address. > virtual/actual > + elena? > abstract/actual > + elena? Actual doesn't have the right ring to me, and neither does abstract, but these are moving it the right direction. I could just use user/lowlevel or highlevel/lowlevel, to muddy the waters further. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer