From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-128227-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12222 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2015 18:17:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 12192 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2015 18:17:21 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:D*me, H*f:sk:001a113, loud
X-HELO: ausxipps310.us.dell.com
Received: from AUSXIPPS310.us.dell.com (HELO ausxipps310.us.dell.com) (143.166.148.211) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:17:20 +0000
X-LoopCount0: from 10.175.216.250
From: <Paul_Koning@Dell.com>
To: <brobecker@adacore.com>
CC: <dje@google.com>, <ale+gdb@clearmind.me>, <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PING^3] [PATCH] Expose signal and syscall catchpoints to Python
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:17:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BEDBA4F6-E5D9-41DA-B491-8226111BD372@dell.com>
References: <001a1136affa52fa4b052730e695@google.com> <20151219035647.GH29928@adacore.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151219035647.GH29928@adacore.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0567002D95C31F44A1A2CC2625AB9F22@dell.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2


> On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrot=
e:
>=20
>> This will need doc additions too of course, but before you
>> spend time on that there is a high level issue that we
>> (the community) should decide on:
>> Is it time to start subclassing breakpoints instead of
>> continually extending the one uber-breakpoint class?
>> IOW, should catchpoints be a subclass of breakpoints?
>>=20
>> Subclassing is clearly a better way to go,
>> so I'm kinda thinking now's the time.
>=20
> Thinking out loud...
>=20
> I like the idea of starting subclassing.=20

Same here.

That makes me wonder: it probably makes no sense for some of the classes, b=
ut there are likely to be some GDB classes where user-defined subclasses wo=
uld be useful.

	paul