From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5206 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2006 22:59:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 5197 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2006 22:59:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:59:55 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FUAmv-000861-CW; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:59:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints Message-ID: <20060413225945.GB30759@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060411214613.GA702@nevyn.them.org> <200604120943.k3C9hYJ8012016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412125712.GA22145@nevyn.them.org> <200604121837.k3CIbMwu004466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412184717.GA29980@nevyn.them.org> <443EC947.9060109@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <443EC947.9060109@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:57:27PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > I haven't followed this discussion closely, so forgive me > if I'm recapitulating something that's already been said. > > What about something like "void *target_data" in the breakpoint struct? > The target can add whatever it likes, and the core breakpoint code > doesn't need to know what it is. If it's non-null when the bp is > freed, then the target should be given an opportunity to delete it. I'd be fine with that too; personally I think it's about the same, except a bit of additional complexity for deallocation. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery