From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21002 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2009 16:10:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 20985 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2009 16:10:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:10:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AE12BC26E; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ol6z8vR3MIrA; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FC42BC267; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68518F5899; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make tracepoints into breakpoints Message-ID: <20090330161015.GA18050@adacore.com> References: <49CD275B.1020003@codesourcery.com> <20090330153348.GY9472@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090330153348.GY9472@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00676.txt.bz2 > I'd also like to look at your patch again sometime soon, to figure out > whether it'd make sense or not for tracepoints to have their own > breakpoint_ops routines... To be continued :) I was too impatient, so I looked at it again ;). Regarding the use of the breakpoint_ops routine, it makes sense for some of them, but not all. For instance, the print_one "method" could be kept as NULL. For the print_mention method, it would make sense to have a dedicated method, but that method currently does not handle the "say_where" flag. So I'm 50/50 on this topic. I would probably have used the breakpoint_ops myself, because I have this idealistic goal of converting everything to using breakpoint ops one day. The downside for tracepoints is that the implementation style gets fragmented between the "old" style and the "new" one. The upside is that using breakpoint_ops now puts us closer to that idealistic goal. It's still not clear to me that this goal is attainable at all, which is why I'm not too attached to using breakpoint_ops in your case. I propose you let me ramble about it on my own, and do nothing (unless you feel like it) :-). -- Joel