From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12410 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2011 03:41:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 12401 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2011 03:41:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 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; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:41:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p753fCpe025479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:41:12 -0400 Received: from psique ([10.3.112.5]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p753f5BQ027682; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:41:07 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Tom Tromey 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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:40:39 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00090.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey writes: >>>>>> "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. > > 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. All right, I see what you mean. Personally, I think that if this behavior happens, then it means we should probably fix linespec in order to evaluate the `probe:' part earlier. Anyway, as I said in my earlier reply, I think that holding the stap patch because of this change in particular is something we may not want (I certainly don't), so for me this is the strongest argument for why we could change it from breakpoint to catchpoint. > Let me know what you think. In the absence of comments I am going to > implement this. As I said in the beginning, I'm OK with that change. But obviously I'm not a maintainer, and I'm also an interested part in this being accepted :-).