Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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