Re: [PATCH] Make tracepoints into breakpoints

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>> *************** bpstat_what (bpstat bs)
>>> *** 3324,3329 ****
>>> --- 3358,3367 ----
>>>   	  bs_class = bp_silent;
>>>   	  retval.call_dummy = 1;
>>>   	  break;
>>> + + 	case bp_tracepoint:
>>> + 	  /* (should never occur, complain about it) */
>>> + 	  continue;
>>>   	}
>>>         current_action = table[(int) bs_class][(int) current_action];
>>>       }
>>>     
>>
>> This hunk looks really strange... Out of place?

First of all, I apologize of this comment, since I realize now
that it was incorrect. I was completely confused because of the tabs
that made it look like you were putting a continue that would kill
the code just right after. If I had read the hunk more carefully,
I would have realized it was a '}', not a '{'!

> I was waffling on whether to make explicit errors for the impossible  
> cases. I suppose there should be, one can imagine a buggy target  
> mistakenly stopping and reporting back at a tracepoint.

Oh... I did not realize that this could actually happen if we had
a buggy target. Perhaps an error to help diagnose any problem, or
a complaint if we want to recover nicely from target errors? Just
some thoughts - I'm also fine if we prefer to recover silently.

-- 
Joel