Re: catchpoint - bptype

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 02:00:02PM -0400, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
>> I don't want to add new elements to those switches unless they are
>> really for things that do not behave like breakpoints.  I'd be happy
>> to see patches removing existing cases.  That's why, when I wrote new
>> code to catch C++ exceptions, I used breakpoint_ops.
>
> I think breakpoint_ops is a good approach, but I would dare to say - 
> incomplete. 

Yes, that's accurate.  I didn't change any of the existing
ones when I added the mechanism.

>>> See how "fork" is cool and "catch" isn't. "Catch" looks just like
>>> any other breakpoint; the only diff. is in "What" field, while catch
>>> fork is clearly a catchpoint.
>>
>> If you can convince us it matters, we can change the output.
>
> Just that the documentation treats them differently and calls them 
> catchpoints. And I would say that logically they are kind of special... 
> that's all. 

If you want them displayed as catchpoints I'm amenable to a patch.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery