From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19611 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2010 19:03:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 19603 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2010 19:03:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:03:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 29504 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2010 19:03:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Oct 2010 19:03:43 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Add visible flag to breakpoints. Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: dan@codesourcery.com References: <201010081435.15174.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201010162003.41609.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-10/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 Below's just for the record. I'm okay with whatever you guys have decided. ;-) On Friday 08 October 2010 15:04:37, Phil Muldoon wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > > > On Friday 08 October 2010 13:50:34, Phil Muldoon wrote: > >> The @var{internal} argument has no effect with watchpoints. > > > > Should it be an error instead (or made to work)? > > I can make it an error. I decided not to do watchpoints. IMO, either of these would be better API than a silent ignore. If you go with error, the client of the API can retry a non-internal breakpoint after e.g., printing a warning, say. As is, if you ever add support for internal watchpoints, then a script has no way to tell whether such internal breakpoints are actually supported by the gdb at hand until trying: if the flag is just ignored, too late, the user has already seen the breakpoint being created... > The > consequences of setting hidden watchpoints from a script that could turn > out to be software watchpoints seemed a little troubling. IMO, it should the script writers' responsibility to weight that, but it's also okay to not support it until someone asks for it (though that someone would be happier if she didn't have to, obviously :-) ). -- Pedro Alves