From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20250 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2008 18:13:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 20231 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2008 18:13:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:13:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02EB498445; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:13:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C73F998443; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:12:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JqXqV-0001ug-5L; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:12:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Aleksandar Ristovski Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: catchpoint - bptype Message-ID: <20080428181259.GA7338@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aleksandar Ristovski , Joel Brobecker , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20080428162109.GE16574@adacore.com> <48160959.2050404@qnx.com> <20080428173754.GA4955@caradoc.them.org> <481610A2.4030709@qnx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <481610A2.4030709@qnx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 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