From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18446 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2011 20:41:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 18437 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2011 20:41:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:40:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p74KefPX026232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:40:41 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p74KefeK013220; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:40:41 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p74KedOc009214; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:40:40 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: Pedro Alves , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals' References: <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Sergio Durigan Junior's message of "Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:47:02 -0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Sergio" == Sergio Durigan Junior writes: Tom> Yesterday I started wondering if this patch series could go in if Tom> re-expressed as catchpoints. Sergio> IMHO this is OK. I would prefer to see this command as a breakpoint Sergio> because I have always seen catchpoints as "event-oriented breakpoints", Sergio> such as the calling/returning of a syscall, or a fork, or exec. Yeah, I think this distinction generally makes sense. However, I thought of one other reason we might prefer a catchpoint: if we add "objfile:"-style linespecs ("break libc.so:malloc"), then we are going to run into trouble if anybody tries to debug a program named "probe" -- because "break probe:spec" is handled pretty early in linespec. Let me know what you think. In the absence of comments I am going to implement this. Tom