From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12487 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2003 16:02:37 -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 12477 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2003 16:02:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gollum.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 2003 16:02:36 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.156.210]) by gollum.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id BQE75669; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:01:16 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:02:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <7494-Thu16Oct2003175650+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3F8EAA56.3020900@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:25:26 -0400) Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <3F846B04.2070801@redhat.com> <3F85B4AC.7000000@redhat.com> <20031014013831.GB6118@nevyn.them.org> <3F8C18DD.3020508@redhat.com> <20031014155126.GA10669@nevyn.them.org> <3F8C605E.1060604@redhat.com> <20031015224134.GA4102@nevyn.them.org> <6654-Thu16Oct2003085007+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <3F8EAA56.3020900@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:25:26 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > 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". In other words, we actually set a trap in each of these *point situations, so they are really very much alike. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that they share many similar features and are all described by struct breakpoint. > (Happened to talk to fernado about his uni GDB work and he explained > that that the logical/physical separation occures all over the place - > happened to also use log/phys without my prompting :-). I actually think that we should leave the term ``breakpoint'' alone, and refer to what you call ``a physical breakpoint'' as the breakpoint's location or instantiation. That's because most of the information associated with a breakpoint is stored with the ``logical breakpoint'', whereas the ``physical breakpoint'' only stores an address and a bunch of flags.