From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: S?rgio Durigan J?nior <sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>,
Luis Machado <luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Matt Tyrlik <tyrlik@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support the new PPC476 processor
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091220131521.GH2788@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200912161847.17162.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sergio,
I did a quick pass over the patch that you sent, and I pretty much
agree with the comments made by Eli. My general comment, is that
the patch is too big for me to really digest as is (3,000 lines in
total!)- maybe it's just me being preoccupied with some many things
going on at the same time. If you'd like to help me review your changes,
I suggest we take a different approach than the one you took to present
these patches: I'd like to have a set of independent patches that implement
each feature independently (that way, I don't have to try to determine
which feature each hunk applies to). We don't have to have them all,
in fact, I'd feel less overwhelmed if we started with just one feature.
For instance, we could look at hardware-accelerated watchpoint conds.
We could look at watchpoint ranges, but we are still discussing the user
interface...
One stylistic comment is that I'm having a hard time with the use of
"point" to mean either breakpoint or watchpoint. I wonder if we could
find something else, but nothing really comes to mind. I am tempted
to say that watchpoints are really data breakpoints while breakpoints
are instruction breakpoints (this is how some documents that I read
called watchpoints: data breakpoints), but perhaps using breakpoint
in this case is going to just be too confusing in the GDB context.
Hmmmm....
--
Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-20 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-16 20:48 Sérgio Durigan Júnior
2009-12-17 4:42 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-12-17 14:19 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2009-12-17 16:15 ` Sérgio Durigan Júnior
2009-12-18 10:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-12-20 12:33 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-12-30 3:13 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2009-12-30 20:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-12-30 22:15 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-12-31 4:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-12-31 16:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-12-31 16:50 ` Pedro Alves
2009-12-20 13:16 ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
2009-12-20 15:09 ` Sérgio Durigan Júnior
2009-12-20 18:24 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-12-21 12:54 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091220131521.GH2788@adacore.com \
--to=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tyrlik@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox