Re: minimalistic MI catch support

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:15:58AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> OK thanks for explaining the difference.  I would still say that they are
> a _bit_ like breakpoints (they stop execution if fork or exec are called)
> and I guess thats why their details are given in "info breakpoints".
> 
> Are you saying "catch fork" and "catch exec" aren't at all like
> "catch catch" and "catch throw" which do have addresses?  If so, perhaps
> some clearer distinction could be made to the user/in MI output.

I think Eli's convinced me on this point; we should hide the addresses,
at least in "info breakpoints".

"catch catch" is a pretty generic concept.  When implemented on a GNU
v3 binary, it uses a breakpoint; when implemented on an old HP-UX aCC
binary, apparently, it used an out-of-band event just like "catch
fork".  Thus the difference.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery