RE: RFC: implement "catch signal"

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Tromey [mailto:tromey@redhat.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:32 PM
> To: Jan Kratochvil
> Cc: André Pönitz; gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Marc Khouzam; 
> Dodji Seketeli
> Subject: Re: RFC: implement "catch signal"
> 
> Jan> I do not know how serious is the backward compatibility of
> Jan> type="catchpoint".
> 
> Tom> Me neither.
> 
> On irc, André said that at least his front end isn't handling 
> catchpoint
> at all.  So I would guess that changing this, at least for 
> him, would be
> fine.
> 
> CCing Marc Khouzam, to get the Eclipse perspective, and Dodji for
> nemiver.
> 
> The background is that right now all catchpoints report
> type="catchpoint" in MI; but it seems better to me to make this report
> the real catchpoint type, e.g., type="catch-load" or something like
> that.
> 
> The alternative is something like type="catchpoint",catch-type="load".

Eclipse looks for 'type' to start with "catchpoint", so having something
like type="catchpoint-load" would be backwards-compatible in our case.

I've added Mikhail Khodjainants who has recently worked on synchronizing
Eclipse and GDB 'breakpoints' but ran into serious problems for catchpoints.

> I sometimes think we should have a special "MI discuss" list 
> just so we
> can work these things out without requiring all the MI 
> consumer authors
> to filter through the main lists.  Just CCing a couple people whose
> names I remember isn't very good... :)

gdb-mi@source...
could be a good thing to have.

> 
> Tom
>