From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-59697-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 23908 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2008 19:11:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 23882 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2008 19:11:59 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:11:17 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0K9V00700JYD8O00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:12:36 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.241.172]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0K9V002PDK0Z7420@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:12:36 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:11:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Architecture-independent	part
In-reply-to: <20081105185856.GA10838@caradoc.them.org>
X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <uej1qt2d8.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <1225773079.24532.52.camel@miki> <ubpwvureh.fsf@gnu.org> <1225836687.20764.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <uvdv3t9ny.fsf@gnu.org> <20081104223421.GC5391@caradoc.them.org> <ur65qu7ov.fsf@gnu.org> <20081105145449.GA26401@caradoc.them.org> <uiqr2t3nt.fsf@gnu.org> <20081105185856.GA10838@caradoc.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:58:56 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 08:43:02PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > We could, but that would be second best, IMO.  It would be better to
> > make the abstraction less Unix-centric.
> 
> I don't think that Windows API calls belong in "catch syscall".

You made it perfectly clear that this is what you think, but we will
have to disagree.

Regardless, I still think that the breakpoint.c notion of a syscall
should be a higher abstraction than just a number.