From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24515 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2009 23:23:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 24507 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2009 23:23:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1-old.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:22:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com ([10.11.47.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7VNMp0o028850 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:22:52 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7VNMp6p016157; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:22:51 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 n7VNMopr029497; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:22:50 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id AF3FD3781AF; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:22:49 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Simplify MI breakpoint setting References: <200908011113.32939.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200908241353.40486.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200908241353.40486.vladimir@codesourcery.com> (Vladimir Prus's message of "Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:53:40 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00601.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Volodya" == Vladimir Prus writes: Volodya> And, progressing recursively, what is the point of not exposing Volodya> all the parameters of break_command_really? I don't actually know. But if I had to guess, I would say it is because providing wrappers ensures you can't pass in some forms of nonsense. If you really want to do it, and nobody objects, then I guess I don't care all that much. This whole API seems a bit nuts, any time you have 13 arguments you should just assume you've done something wrong already. I do care about not exporting a function named "break_command_really" though. Tom