From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19839 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2011 18:14:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 19829 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2011 18:14:45 -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; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:14:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 1732 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2011 18:14:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Jun 2011 18:14:30 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [0/2] more OO, Ada exception catchpoints: intro Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Tom Tromey , Joel Brobecker References: <201106221420.08780.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106221914.28164.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: 2011-06/txt/msg00322.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 22 June 2011 18:24:06, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> (serving as proof/excuse for me to add a few more bits to > Pedro> breakpoint_ops and export a few functions from breakpoint.c :-) > Pedro> ). > > As far as I'm concerned, you don't need an excuse to do this. > I think it would be best if all breakpoints had to use breakpoint_ops > and there were no switches in breakpoint.c, just indirect calls. Yeah! Some things aren't easy to make fully breakpoint_ops'ed though. Example, code that is switching on is_hardware_watchpoint/is_watchpoint and compares breakpoints, or loops over "kinds" of breakpoints (watchpoints, tracepoints/breakpoints). Maybe those would still stay. I have a feeling that some of those operations that we do on breakpoints currently should be done on locations alone (and we should decouple breakpoints/bp_locations a bit more so that we don't need to look at a location's owner.) Just a hunch though, haven't thought about it that much through. -- Pedro Alves