From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18434 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2006 16:46:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 18424 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2006 16:46:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:44:51 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FJvaj-0003rm-Mz for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:44:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MI: changing breakpoint location Message-ID: <20060316164449.GA14811@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060316160521.GA13476@nevyn.them.org> <200603161911.55098.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060316161556.GA14155@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:39:42PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > >> > Almost all of the work of the "break" command is figuring out where the > >> > breakpoint should go. I don't see an advantage in having more commands > >> > that need to be able to work that out. > >> > >> Can't that logic be factored out into a function? > > > > Of course, it already is. But that's not the point; I don't want a > > proliferation of commands with similar functionality, when they aren't > > needed. The larger the MI interface grows, the harder it is to test > > and maintain. > > I think there's a tradeoff here -- in this specific case, all frontend > authors will have to implement the same functionality, likely with bugs. If > this is done right once in gdb, all frontends will work correctly. > > Of course, frontend maintainers and gdb maintainers are different groups, so > if you mean adding this to gdb will move work from frontend maintainers to > gdb maintainers and you don't like that idea, I understand. Or you object > to the idea even if it will backed up by a patch eventually? It's not implementing it in GDB that's a problem. As I said above, it's maintaining it and testing it forevermore. That's why I want to keep the MI interface well defined and as small as possible (but no smaller). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery