From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2262 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2013 19:16:04 -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 2253 invoked by uid 89); 15 Nov 2013 19:16:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:16:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAFJFqxc016632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:15:52 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-124.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.124]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAFJFodY022890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:15:51 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pmuldoon@redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Allow CLI and Python conditions to be set on same breakpoint References: <87bo1mwvqg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <52853D8A.5070908@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:34:31 -0800") Message-ID: <8761rttr15.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00428.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> Need More Data. That goes both ways. If you still prefer the other semantics, perhaps you could explain why. Doug> In this scenario, when would one typically add a CLI condition to such Doug> a Python interpreter breakpoint? It's a flaw in this example. But the example is just an example. I would hope it does not need to be bulletproof in order to persuade one that perhaps the proposed semantics are not obviously ideal. Doug> Plus if this is really a check_status thing then I wonder if Doug> gdb.Breakpoint is going down the wrong path and we should be providing Doug> a class where users can override breakpoint_ops. Yes. However that ran aground of difficulties when attempted. The main issue, I think -- and this goes back to the ABI business -- is that breakpoint_ops are a bit weird; and breakpoint.c is clearly in need of some refactoring and more replacement of bptype checks with method calls. I'd be delighted if somebody did this. It hasn't made the top of our list yet. Tom