From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8473 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2009 13:16:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 8462 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2009 13:16:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:16:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530C82BAB2C; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:16:34 -0500 (EST) 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 eI+OQjeDg0wG; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53462BAB23; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 91667F5892; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:15:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:16:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: S?rgio Durigan J?nior Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Thiago Jung Bauermann , Luis Machado , Matt Tyrlik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support the new PPC476 processor Message-ID: <20091220131521.GH2788@adacore.com> References: <200912161847.17162.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200912161847.17162.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2 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