From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13507 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2004 11:50:37 -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 13496 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2004 11:50:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Aug 2004 11:50:36 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-200-69.inter.net.il [80.230.200.69]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id EEZ11225; Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:50:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:50:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <8011-Sat14Aug2004144712+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <411BD678.3020504@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:43:36 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <41191D71.60204@redhat.com> <7494-Wed11Aug2004070352+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411A4209.6020801@redhat.com> <411A5012.3000508@gnu.org> <9743-Wed11Aug2004205531+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411A84B0.7020106@gnu.org> <2427-Thu12Aug2004064240+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411B5E34.5020906@gnu.org> <3405-Thu12Aug2004214630+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411BD678.3020504@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00501.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:43:36 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > Here's a reference http://patterndigest.com/patterns/Observer.html I'm well aware of the observer pattern and its general usefulness. What I'm not sure about is whether this specific case justifies an introduction of a _new_ observer, when it could easily (or so it seems to me) be fixed in another, more traditional, way. Sorry if that concern was unclear from my original wording. > Conversely, the breakpoint code, doesn't care about the course of events > that lead to an shlib-unload, just that it occured. Our breakpoint code is replete with things it cares about that happen in other parts of the code. I don't understand why this minor problem justifies to be solved in such a different, non-minor way.