Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:25:26 -0400
>>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>>
>>BTW, long term, this stuff is going to be hijacked by other *point 
>>mechanisms.  Variable watchpoints, for instance, will be given a similar 
>>projection (the watchpoint changes that last year stalled can probably 
>>be picked up again).  While the term "breakpoint" may continue to be 
>>used, it will be applied to more than just breakpoints.
> 
> 
> I don't see any problems with that.  In fact, we might wish to start
> educating GDB users to use the term ``breakpoint'' for all of those.
> E.g., many implementations of dbx and other debuggers support
> watchpoints, but call them ``breakpoints'' or ``data breakpoints''.
> Someone whose first debugger was GDB might not even find how to set
> watchpoints unless they try looking for "breakpoint".

The difference between breakpoints and watchpoints may be small,
but the difference between breakpoints and tracepoints is large.
Some people have used the term "stop point".

Other potential stop-points are signals (synch and asynch),
throw and catch, syscalls, longjmp, synchronization, thread
switch, blocking...