From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100507161648.GB14342@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BE02AB0.6060609@codesourcery.com>
On Tue, 04 May 2010 16:09:52 +0200, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >the simple idea is to inline bpstat_what into handle_inferior_event. This
> >removes enum bpstat_what_main_action and struct bpstat_what currently acting
> >just as an interface between these two functions.
>
> There's a reason for this actually, which is that it helps keep the
> myriad of random breakpoint types from infecting the rest of GDB.
This way from existing 24 bp_* breakpoint types you create new artificial
9 BPSTAT_* types with associated 3 STOP_* types, therefore effectively you
create new artificial 11 BPSTAT/STOP_* breakpoint events.
> Breakpoint types are visible globally, and individual breakpoint
> types are mentioned here and there in the code, but I think it's
> worthwhile to keep the type enumerations / switches in breakpoint.c
> as much as possible.
I understand the idea. If there would be 3 or 4 BPSTAT/STOP_* events I would
say it is worth it. But 11 BPSTAT/STOP_* events I find as a too thick
interface to overweight the cost of a new artificial interface at all.
While this citation may be controversial I find it appropriate here:
% And my point is that multiple interfaces are BAD.
%
% There is one interface we _have_ to have: the traditional
% [subject replaced>>>] bp_* types [<<<] one. That one we can't get away from.
%
% "Multiple interfaces" on its own is just confusion with no upside.
%
% You need a _reason_ to have other interfaces. They need to have that
% killer feature. Just being "different" is not a feature at all.
-- Linus Torvalds
Currently already the bp_* types references are not encapsulated in
breakpoint.[ch]:
386 breakpoint.[ch]
51 other files
= 12%
By inlining bpstat_what from breakpoint.c into infrun.c thus moving the 24
bp_* types references from the first line to the second line it gets worse: 18%
Still 12% to 18% is not any radical design change.
Moreover I do not notice in which file which function resides at least myself.
With ctags navigation (+vim :grep -rw) one jumps the references without
noticing any file boundaries. I understand some cscope or some Emacs
navigation is even more seamless.
> There is a pretty good chance that we're going to be doing some
> refactoring on how breakpoint types are handled - people are
> interested in the idea of "tracing watchpoints" (or "watching
> tracepoints" :-) ) for instance - so there's a practical reason to
> provide interfaces that define the net effect of types, rather than
> requiring callers to know aracane details of each.
I see the opposite examples where new breakpoint types always require also new
infrun behavior:
off-trunk archer-jankratochvil-ifunc:
bp_gnu_ifunc_resolver: Place new breakpoint at the return point.
bp_gnu_ifunc_resolver_return: Move target breakpoint to the right address.
off-trunk archer-pmuldoon-next-over-throw2 [by tromey]:
bp_exception: Place bp_exception_resume breakpoint.
bp_exception_resume: Delete the breakpoint and check if we should stop.
These cases mean that each new bp_* type requires new BPSTAT/STOP_* event,
thus nullifying the artificial bpstat_what interface separation.
Still I can keep the BPSTAT_* interface, remove the STOP_* symbols, still
remove the state machine table and keep the bp_* -> BPSTAT_* conversion in
existing bpstat_what. The state machine table has been the primary target of
this patchset. The BPSTAT_* symbols should be still renamed to more
technically describe both their infrun effect and their bp_* types relation.
Thanks,
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-07 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-03 20:02 Jan Kratochvil
2010-05-04 14:10 ` Stan Shebs
2010-05-07 16:17 ` Jan Kratochvil [this message]
2010-05-07 16:26 ` Pedro Alves
2010-05-07 17:02 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-05-07 17:17 ` Pedro Alves
2010-05-17 21:46 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-12 17:02 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal [rediff] Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-15 15:08 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-15 21:54 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-16 19:13 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-18 10:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-18 11:42 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-18 14:09 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-18 14:35 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-24 14:44 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-24 14:48 ` [patch 3.1/3] bpstat_what removal - addon gdb_assert Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-24 15:03 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal Pedro Alves
2010-06-24 15:21 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-16 20:40 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal [rediff] Tom Tromey
2010-06-23 14:42 ` Jan Kratochvil
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=20100507161648.GB14342@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net \
--to=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=stan@codesourcery.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