From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31191 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2014 09:27:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 31177 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jun 2014 09:27:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout22.012.net.il Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:27:06 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N6N00A000R9XZ00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:27:04 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N6N00A6D0X3L6A0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:27:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:27:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Split create-breakpoint! into make-breakpoint, register-breakpoint! In-reply-to: <87y4xdf57p.fsf@gnu.org> To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Cc: xdje42@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83a99t81p7.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <83fvjl889b.fsf@gnu.org> <87y4xdf57p.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 > From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:29:14 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii skribis: > > >> From: Doug Evans > >> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 21:53:48 -0700 > >> > >> In keeping with the splitting of object creation and registration into > >> two separate pieces, this does the same for breakpoints. > >> "Consistency Is Good". > >> > >> There hasn't been an FSF release of gdb+guile yet so I think it's ok > >> to remove create-breakpoint! here. > > > > OK for the documentation part, but is delete-breakpoint a better name > > than breakpoint-delete?. > > I prefer ‘delete-breakpoint!’. Fine with me. (Btw, what exactly is the principle behind the usage of the trailing exclam?) > > A question: how does one discard breakpoint objects so that they no > > longer exist? It seems that breakpoint-delete! only "deregisters" the > > breakpoint, but there's no way to undo the effect of the > > create-breakpoint procedure. > > They just get garbage collected eventually. That's what I suspected. But then we cannot say in the manual that a breakpoint deleted by breakpoint-delete! can later be re-registered, can we? Because if the object was GCed, we cannot register it, can we? Actually, there's a more serious problem here: what if the object created by create-breakpoint is GCed _before_ we register it the first time? GC can strike whenever it feels like, so we _must_ explain that a Guile variable that holds the breakpoint object should never go out of scope before it is used to register the breakpoint. Am I missing something?