Re: [4/4] RFC: implement catch load and catch unload

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>> +	ui_out_field_int (current_uiout, "spurious", 1);

Pedro> Do we need "spurious"?  We get the same info from neither
Pedro> "removed" nor "added" being present.  I'm not super fond of using
Pedro> the word "spurious" because the stop had some reason, and in my
Pedro> mind, something spurious is something that should not have
Pedro> happened.  But in this case, the stop means something, but we're
Pedro> not interpreting it.

I removed it.  I also removed it from the ui_out_text call.

Pedro> Maybe for "catch ...", we shouldn't report a stop in the
Pedro> "spurious" case?

We don't -- check_status_catch_solib will filter them out.

>> -  if (shlib_event)

Pedro> The shlib_event local should be removed then.

Thanks, I did this.  I fixed up the other little details too.

>> +    if (self->base.pspace != NULL && other->pspace != self->base.pspace)
>> +      continue;

Pedro> So a consequence of this is that "catch load" is only active for
Pedro> the inferior was current when the catchpoint was created, right?
Pedro> Was that the intention?  If we already had itsets, we could make
Pedro> it trigger on all inferiors by default, and then use itsets to
Pedro> filter.

I just made it work the way other catchpoints seem to work.  They are
also pspace-specific.  It seemed ok to do this, to me, on the theory
that one more spot to change for itsets won't be a big burden; while on
the other hand being different here doesn't seem beneficial.

Tom