* Annotate Was:[[RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps] [not found] <Pine.GSO.4.33.0105110855100.9875-100000@ryobi.cygnus.com> @ 2001-05-11 9:09 ` Fernando Nasser 2001-05-11 10:11 ` Eli Zaretskii 2001-05-11 9:15 ` [RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps Fernando Nasser 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Fernando Nasser @ 2001-05-11 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Keith Seitz; +Cc: gdb-patches, gdb, Andrew Cagney Keith Seitz wrote: > > Ugh. I suddenly remembered why I didn't post a patch eliminating the > hook.. annotate.c. > > Maybe I should work on converting annotate.c, too? ;-) > No, but you can work on converting emacs to use MI ;-) Maybe we should post a message asking for a volunteer to do this on the emacs lists... -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Annotate Was:[[RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps] 2001-05-11 9:09 ` Annotate Was:[[RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps] Fernando Nasser @ 2001-05-11 10:11 ` Eli Zaretskii 2001-05-11 10:30 ` Elena Zannoni 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2001-05-11 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fnasser; +Cc: keiths, gdb-patches, gdb, cagney > Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:07:22 -0400 > From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> > > Keith Seitz wrote: > > > > Ugh. I suddenly remembered why I didn't post a patch eliminating the > > hook.. annotate.c. > > > > Maybe I should work on converting annotate.c, too? ;-) > > > > No, but you can work on converting emacs to use MI ;-) > > Maybe we should post a message asking for a volunteer to do this on the > emacs lists... If someone wants to suggest this seriously, please post that to emacs-devel@gnu.org. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Annotate Was:[[RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps] 2001-05-11 10:11 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2001-05-11 10:30 ` Elena Zannoni 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Elena Zannoni @ 2001-05-11 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: fnasser, keiths, gdb-patches, gdb, cagney Eli Zaretskii writes: > > Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:07:22 -0400 > > From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> > > > > Keith Seitz wrote: > > > > > > Ugh. I suddenly remembered why I didn't post a patch eliminating the > > > hook.. annotate.c. > > > > > > Maybe I should work on converting annotate.c, too? ;-) > > > > > > > No, but you can work on converting emacs to use MI ;-) > > > > Maybe we should post a message asking for a volunteer to do this on the > > emacs lists... > > If someone wants to suggest this seriously, please post that to > emacs-devel@gnu.org. > That would be good. Who else relies on annotation? I think HP's WDB does, no? Elena ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps [not found] <Pine.GSO.4.33.0105110855100.9875-100000@ryobi.cygnus.com> 2001-05-11 9:09 ` Annotate Was:[[RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps] Fernando Nasser @ 2001-05-11 9:15 ` Fernando Nasser 2001-05-11 10:22 ` Michael Snyder 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Fernando Nasser @ 2001-05-11 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Keith Seitz; +Cc: gdb-patches, Michael Snyder Keith Seitz wrote: > > On Fri, 11 May 2001, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > Keith, you have attached the same old patch! > > Maybe that was intentional! ([hypnotizing voice] You _will_ see things my > way!) > > Here's the real revised patch. No really, it is. > This looks good (and safe) to me. But we need Michael's or Jim's approval. Or would this be an obvious fix? You are just making the code do what the documentation (comments) say it should do. It is very safe as well, it should not impact anything else (now that the hooks were left alone). Fernando > Index: breakpoint.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/breakpoint.c,v > retrieving revision 1.35 > diff -u -p -r1.35 breakpoint.c > --- breakpoint.c 2001/05/06 22:22:02 1.35 > +++ breakpoint.c 2001/05/11 16:01:17 > @@ -318,6 +318,15 @@ int exception_support_initialized = 0; > error ("catch of library unloads not yet implemented on this platform") > #endif > > +/* Is this breakpoint interesting to a user interface? */ > +#define REPORT_BREAKPOINT_EVENT(bp) \ > +((bp)->type == bp_breakpoint \ > + || (bp)->type == bp_hardware_breakpoint \ > + || (bp)->type == bp_watchpoint \ > + || (bp)->type == bp_hardware_watchpoint \ > + || (bp)->type == bp_read_watchpoint \ > + || (bp)->type == bp_access_watchpoint) > + > /* Set breakpoint count to NUM. */ > > void > @@ -4375,7 +4384,8 @@ mention (struct breakpoint *b) > delete_breakpoint_hook and so on. */ > if (create_breakpoint_hook) > create_breakpoint_hook (b); > - breakpoint_create_event (b->number); > + if (REPORT_BREAKPOINT_EVENT (b)) > + breakpoint_create_event (b->number); > > switch (b->type) > { > @@ -6735,7 +6745,8 @@ delete_breakpoint (struct breakpoint *bp > > if (delete_breakpoint_hook) > delete_breakpoint_hook (bpt); > - breakpoint_delete_event (bpt->number); > + if (REPORT_BREAKPOINT_EVENT (bpt)) > + breakpoint_delete_event (bpt->number); > > if (bpt->inserted) > remove_breakpoint (bpt, mark_uninserted); > @@ -7304,7 +7315,8 @@ disable_breakpoint (struct breakpoint *b > > if (modify_breakpoint_hook) > modify_breakpoint_hook (bpt); > - breakpoint_modify_event (bpt->number); > + if (REPORT_BREAKPOINT_EVENT (bpt)) > + breakpoint_modify_event (bpt->number); > } > > /* ARGSUSED */ > @@ -7433,7 +7445,8 @@ have been allocated for other watchpoint > } > if (modify_breakpoint_hook) > modify_breakpoint_hook (bpt); > - breakpoint_modify_event (bpt->number); > + if (REPORT_BREAKPOINT_EVENT (bpt)) > + breakpoint_modify_event (bpt->number); > } > > void > > > I am not against removing the hook. I would not be so certain that > > NOTHING is using it as there are too many obscure academic projects > > going on using Free Software. That is how Free Software started (and > > how I started hacking GDB) and I would not like to discard them. But, > > whoever is doing anything with GDB should be monitoring this list. So, > > if you post to gdb@sources saying that you will get rid of these hooks > > and nobody answers in a reasonable time, "off with their heads"! > > Ugh. I suddenly remembered why I didn't post a patch eliminating the > hook.. annotate.c. > > Maybe I should work on converting annotate.c, too? ;-) > > Keith -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps 2001-05-11 9:15 ` [RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps Fernando Nasser @ 2001-05-11 10:22 ` Michael Snyder 2001-05-11 10:25 ` Fernando Nasser 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Michael Snyder @ 2001-05-11 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fernando Nasser; +Cc: Keith Seitz, gdb-patches Fernando Nasser wrote: > > Keith Seitz wrote: > > > > On Fri, 11 May 2001, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > > > Keith, you have attached the same old patch! > > > > Maybe that was intentional! ([hypnotizing voice] You _will_ see things my > > way!) > > > > Here's the real revised patch. No really, it is. > > > > This looks good (and safe) to me. But we need Michael's or Jim's > approval. Since this is really about the user interface (not about breakpoints), I defer to Keith's and your judgement. Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps 2001-05-11 10:22 ` Michael Snyder @ 2001-05-11 10:25 ` Fernando Nasser 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Fernando Nasser @ 2001-05-11 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: Keith Seitz, gdb-patches Michael Snyder wrote: > > Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > > Keith Seitz wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 11 May 2001, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > > > > > Keith, you have attached the same old patch! > > > > > > Maybe that was intentional! ([hypnotizing voice] You _will_ see things my > > > way!) > > > > > > Here's the real revised patch. No really, it is. > > > > > > > This looks good (and safe) to me. But we need Michael's or Jim's > > approval. > > Since this is really about the user interface (not about breakpoints), > I defer to Keith's and your judgement. > Thank you Michael. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-05-11 10:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <Pine.GSO.4.33.0105110855100.9875-100000@ryobi.cygnus.com>
2001-05-11 9:09 ` Annotate Was:[[RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps] Fernando Nasser
2001-05-11 10:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-05-11 10:30 ` Elena Zannoni
2001-05-11 9:15 ` [RFA] breakpoint.c: don't generate bp events for internal bps Fernando Nasser
2001-05-11 10:22 ` Michael Snyder
2001-05-11 10:25 ` Fernando Nasser
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox