From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26172 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2011 14:02:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 26158 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2011 14:02:06 -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 14:01:49 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RBoWC-0000Pa-Hv from pedro_alves@mentor.com ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:01:48 -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 15:01:46 +0100 From: Pedro Alves To: pmuldoon@redhat.com Subject: Re: [python] [doc] PR 12930/12802 (clarify Breakpoint::stop doco) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:02:00 -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: <201110061439.46304.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110061501.44330.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/msg00159.txt.bz2 On Thursday 06 October 2011 14:58:27, Phil Muldoon wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > > > 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. > > I'm not opposed to allowing the user to delete, but my view is that > "stop" should make decisions, and not alter state. OTOH, I'm not > strongly moved other than personal preferences, so I can remove that > line if need be. Oh I didn't mean for you to remove it. We can't do that currently, so let's leave it in. I was thinking that we do have internal breakpoints that self-delete on some occasions, and it may be useful to do the same from python --- e.g., local watchpoints going out of scope, and the scope breakpoint. -- Pedro Alves