From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1051 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2012 06:35:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 1023 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2012 06:35:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 06:34:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DEEF2BAC2E; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 01:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id oJlSdKTODgs8; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 01:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56BF32BABAC; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 01:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C087145615; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 10:34:24 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 06:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC stub-side break conditions 1/5] Documentation bits Message-ID: <20120106063424.GI2730@adacore.com> References: <4F05BA03.1010203@mentor.com> <4F065A2E.6020508@codesourcery.com> <4F066283.2090609@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F066283.2090609@earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 > >To align with subject, I doubt it should be "stub-side" rather than > >"target-side". > > > > I would prefer to say "target-side" everywhere actually - no one > really knows what we mean by "stub", and if they try to understand > it by looking at, say, our foo-stub.c files, they'll get really > confused. :-) "Target-side" has the right connotation of "outside > GDB" but without committing to a specific implementation strategy - > like conditional breakpoint tests in h/w debug registers, which > would be the most awesome... Indeed. Just to be sure: we should also change the name of the setting from "stub" to "target". -- Joel