From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25896 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2003 05:49:38 -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 25889 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2003 05:49:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2003 05:49:37 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AF5gR-0001xx-BY; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:49:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew Cagney , msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Message-ID: <20031030054922.GA7434@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Andrew Cagney , msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <3F92B3E5.8010209@gnu.org> <9003-Sun19Oct2003183420+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9003-Sun19Oct2003183420+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00856.txt.bz2 On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 06:34:20PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:55:17 -0400 > > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > I get the feeling that the naming discussion has converged to: > > > > "breakpoint" and "location" > > Did it? I (perhaps among others) suggested that, but I'm not sure > people agreed to it. > > > Unlike the "user" vs "machine" I don't see us having much difficulty > > explaining "breakpoint" and "location" to either users or developers. Ya! > > Obviously, I agree ;-) Well, I haven't seen anyone disagree. This was a wonderfully informative, if somewhat disordered, discussion. I have a lot of messages flagged that I would still like to respond to, and I think I'll try to summarize the issues and alternatives discussed and mail them to gdb@, where this conversation should really happen. It'll be a little while; I haven't had much time for GDB lately. Does anyone disagree with the "breakpoint" and "location" convention for now? Michael, with the change from impl_breakpoint to bp_location, are the patches I posted OK? Just let me know if you'd like me to update and repost them first. I'd like to: - get those cleanups cleaned up and in - create a branch for more exploratory work; I think that to design anything much beyond here I'm simply going to need more implementation experience to talk from. - then raise more conversation when I have a base to work on. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer