From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32098 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2014 17:48:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 32085 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2014 17:48:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: usevmg20.ericsson.net Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (HELO usevmg20.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:48:02 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 82.C4.07420.4379F535; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:12:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:47:59 -0400 From: Marc Khouzam To: 'Pedro Alves' CC: "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: RE: [PATCH] PR breakpoints/15697: Remove =breakpoint-modified when hitting dprintf Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1398716623-16991-1-git-send-email-marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> <535FDAB3.7010601@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <535FDAB3.7010601@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00626.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:01 PM > To: Marc Khouzam > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR breakpoints/15697: Remove =3Dbreakpoint-modified > when hitting dprintf [Bunch of very valid concerns] > Related, I'm not sure we should filter the > observer_notify_breakpoint_modified call -- it would seem better if > observers are notified, and the its MI that filters out those modificatio= ns that > it isn't interested in. > E.g., could TUI be interested in still receiving the nofications? Something to think about. Simon made the same comment off-line. > I don't have answers to the above, but I think these issues all need to be > considered, and whatever resolutions we end up with need to be cast as > comments in the code and manual. Thanks Pedro, you are bringing up valid (and tricky :-)) points. I'll look= into them and see if I can come up with equally valid solutions. Marc