From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31111 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2012 19:39:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 31100 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Dec 2012 19:39:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:39:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB3JdVxO022880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:39:31 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB3JdUlb024008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:39:30 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: implement "catch signal" References: <874nkpv03j.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121202093807.GA21883@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87y5hfvu5v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121203193713.GA10256@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20121203193713.GA10256@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:37:13 +0100") Message-ID: <87obibvsb1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> That MI output is now: Jan> body=[bkpt={number="1",type="catchpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",what=[signal="SIGINT",signal="SIGTRAP"],times="0"}] Jan> vs. for example existing: Jan> body=[bkpt={number="3",type="catchpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",what=" ",times="0"}] Jan> but maybe it is OK this way, MI parsing has never been easy. Yes, I think it is clearly better this way: we use MI constructs for representing lists and such. The "type" of the "what" field is now a bit variable. That is, it can either be a list or a string, depending on the signal catchpoint. Tom