From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1975 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2012 15:46:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 1959 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2012 15:46:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gbenson.demon.co.uk (HELO gbenson.demon.co.uk) (80.177.220.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:46:37 +0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:48:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: hacky fix for PR 12406 Message-ID: <20120113154634.GA9257@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20120112042946.GM31383@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00483.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: > > Joel> An idea that crossed my mind: Add a flag to each entry in our > Joel> SO list. Everytime we stop, we use that flag to determine > Joel> which entries are new. We can probably use something like the > Joel> normal-stop hook to set the flag just before giving the prompt > Joel> back to the user. Would that work? It would support the > Joel> situation I mentioned above where we get one breakpoint event > Joel> for multiple shared libraries... > > Thanks for the idea. I will give it a try. > > Tom> [Inferior loaded library /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2] > Tom> Stopped due to shared library event > > Gary> Could this be a separate option, trace-solib-events maybe? > Gary> It seems like this printing might also be useful when > Gary> stop-on-solib-events is off. > > Gary> Also, as Jan said, it would be nice to have unload > Gary> notifications too. > > This comment inspired me to take another look at the whole problem. > > I actually do not much like stop-on-solib-events. I think 'catch' > commands are better, because they offer the user more control: > commands at the stop point, "silent", conditions. > > So now I am thinking that, while I may still add the notification in > some form, I will also resurrect "catch load" and "catch unload", > something like "catch load [REGEX] [if ...]" Sounds nice! Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/