From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29797 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 19:38:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29789 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 19:38:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 19:38:51 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 7243ACB32; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:38:51 -0700 (PDT) To: Jim Blandy Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Jim Blandy's message of "08 Oct 2003 13:05:34 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 On 08 Oct 2003 13:05:34 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > This sounds really great. Amen. > When you think about what actually is happening in the debuggee, the > mapping is actually many-to-many, since you can have multiple user > breakpoints at the same address. Not that this affects your data > structures --- just an observation. I do wonder what will happen to the duplicate breakpoint message eventually. Or situations where two different user breakpoints both contain command lists and both map to the same machine breakpoint. (Is that possible? Probably in the case of inlining.) But we certainly don't have to worry about those sorts of issues right now. > How about "user breakpoints" and "machine breakpoints"? I like those names too. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com