From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18970 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2005 22:44:06 -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 18959 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2005 22:44:01 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:44:01 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1DpDBt-0006mc-LJ; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:43:57 -0400 Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hooks still needed for annotations Message-ID: <20050703224357.GA26046@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17053.24737.153388.915345@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050601113004.GC15414@white> <17054.10607.109160.333076@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603190856.GB32722@nevyn.them.org> <17056.56022.36723.292491@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603235923.GA9992@nevyn.them.org> <17057.7583.990091.951816@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050703170255.GD13811@nevyn.them.org> <17096.24115.377394.289042@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17096.24115.377394.289042@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:52:51AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Having reread the discussion I would like to ask you what your goal is > > with this patch. You don't use this annotation, and you've said that > > it is very awkward to use because of the amount of output it produces. > > Why should we fix it (as opposed to garbage collecting it) if no one > > has missed it? > > The original authors must have seen a need when they created these > annotations. I was just being conservative because there hasn't been a > release of Emacs to test my code fully. But the need seems to have gone. I just don't understand why you're trying to fix it; you said you didn't use it, so how could your code rely on it? > > The comments in mention() suggest that at one time, GDB was trying to > > move away from breakpoints_changed to a more specific set of hooks. > > But now the hooks are more or less dead, and to get full mileage out of > > them they're going to need a redesign. So maybe we should just delete > > all three hooks, and replace the two that annotations use with > > calls to breakpoints_changed. > > Yes that looks a lot simpler. If you are agreeable to me fixing it in the > first place, I will do that. Might as well, I suppose. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC