Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

Ulrich> Yes, it's the same concept, but those functions in the PIE patch have
Ulrich> some code that seems PIE specific (e.g. the entry point checks) that
Ulrich> should be moved to the caller (presumably solib-svr4.c in the PIE case)
Ulrich> to make the same infrastructure usable for both scenarios.

Yeah, I agree.

Ulrich> (In any case, moving this variable over to a struct inferior field
Ulrich> can be trivially done after Pedro's patches are merged; I'm not sure
Ulrich> we have to wait because of that ...)

I'm inclined to agree as a general rule that we shouldn't put too much
work into helping out uncommitted patches.  In this case, though, we do
already have struct inferior, and I wonder if the seemingly steady
stream of needed fixes is making Pedro's to-do list impossible.
I suppose if he doesn't speak up then I won't object any more :-)

Ulrich> Unless I'm missing someting, the array in
Ulrich> print_one_breakpoint_location is about enum bptype member; I've
Ulrich> added a enum enable_state member here ...

Yes, my mistake.  I frequently get confused since both sets of constants
start with `bp_'.

Tom