From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16662 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 17:53:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16653 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 17:53:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 17:53:11 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEB23C8D; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:53:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D5D3C05.50407@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:53:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/ob] not_a_breakpoint -> not_a_sw_breakpoint References: <3D5D1C3E.8070203@ges.redhat.com> <20020816155016.GA27242@nevyn.them.org> <3D5D3787.30005@ges.redhat.com> <20020816173856.GA1417@nevyn.them.org> <3D5D39C7.8010203@ges.redhat.com> <20020816174730.GA2139@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:43:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > >> >Well, throw/catch events will be (haven't done it yet) implemented >> >using (some kind of) breakpoints. Whether they will be in the table or >> >not is a different question. I personally think that the way >> >catchpoints are handled at the moment is all wrong, since it relies on >> >the to_wait method to determine what event occured; which is perfect >> >for event reporting mechanisms and awful for events synthesized by >> >breakpoints. > >> >> The software single step breakpoint, has a similar problem. One theory >> is to use the breakpoint table for them as well. The current interfaces >> definitly do not lend themselves to such a model. > > > Hmmmmmmmm. I have some ideas how this would be done. I'll stew on it > and bring it up after 5.3 branches. It would involve doing great > violence to handle_inferior_event, unfortunately; but sometimes we've > got to take risks... It can't be less violent than my patch to separate bpstop_stop_status() from the code that prints the stop status. Andrew