From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6119 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2004 03:57:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6112 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2004 03:57:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Aug 2004 03:57:47 -0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Bxe3d-0005Qh-2H; Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:57:45 -0400 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: cagney@gnu.org, jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040818134537.GA14377@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:45:38 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <7494-Wed11Aug2004070352+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411A4209.6020801@redhat.com> <411A5012.3000508@gnu.org> <9743-Wed11Aug2004205531+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411A84B0.7020106@gnu.org> <2427-Thu12Aug2004064240+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411B5E34.5020906@gnu.org> <3405-Thu12Aug2004214630+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411BD678.3020504@gnu.org> <8011-Sat14Aug2004144712+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040818134537.GA14377@nevyn.them.org> Message-Id: Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 03:57:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00572.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:45:38 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > I think that using a new observer here improves clarity - for instance > it lets us easily identify all the points in the code where the > breakpoint module has hooks. And, the observer seems generally useful; > breakpoint.c isn't the only thing that will be affected when a shared > library vanishes. I'd like to see at least a couple more cases like this before I agree that a generalization is in order.