From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5957 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2011 13:40:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5896 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2011 13:40:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:39:50 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RBoAv-0005jr-Vj from pedro_alves@mentor.com ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 06:39:50 -0700 Received: from scottsdale.localnet ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:39:48 +0100 From: Pedro Alves To: pmuldoon@redhat.com Subject: Re: [python] [doc] PR 12930/12802 (clarify Breakpoint::stop doco) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, eli@gnu.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110061439.46304.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: 2011-10/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 On Thursday 06 October 2011 11:58:51, Phil Muldoon wrote: > > This patch address the PRs 12930, and 12802 which both arise from > confusion regarding the scope of actions in the Breakpoint::stop > callback. I have added some documentation to clarify. > > Pedro, please excuse the gratuitous CC, but beyond Eli's normal review > can you please fact-check the documentation to make sure I am not > writing something about states that is incorrect. Thanks! Looks good fact-wise. I think infcalls will make sense to call here (we do support them in the normal breakpoint condition), but that supposedly doesn't leave the inferior's state unaltered, so we're good. I could be made possible to self delete a breakpoint in the callback, but that's not the current state of affairs, it seems. -- Pedro Alves