From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32610 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2003 19:19:12 -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 32603 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2003 19:19:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2003 19:19:11 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h99JJAM08888 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:19:10 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h99JJ9D23236; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:19:09 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h99JJ9i31278; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:19:09 -0700 Message-ID: <3F85B4AC.7000000@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:19:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <3F846B04.2070801@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3F846B04.2070801@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: >> On the infrastructure side we will be able to have an "impl_breakpoint" >> >>> > (short for implementation; better naming ideas?) for each location >>> we are >>> > watching using hardware watchpoints. This will simplify a lot of >>> code. It >>> > will also eventually become easier to object-orient our breakpoints. >> >> >>> >>> How about "user breakpoints" and "machine breakpoints"? >> >> >> >> I like it. > > > Daniel, did you mention somewhere that the debugger book used "logical" > and "physical" breakpoint? If it does, it might be better to adopt its > terminology here. We should think of what would be most meaningful to the user -- not to us. What would "machine breakpoint" mean to a user?