From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16992 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2009 22:42:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16984 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2009 22:42:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:42:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36DD210D1E; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:42:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167E610D1A; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:42:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LVCvi-0000Qa-CM; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:42:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Marc Khouzam Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint Message-ID: <20090205224242.GA1306@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Marc Khouzam , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06CB0F19@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF53@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <200902051225.41426.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:29:26PM -0500, Marc Khouzam wrote: > Hi, > > I'm curious as to the motivation behind silent breakpoints. > I'm trying to understand why a frontend would need to know > of a silent bp hit, but not a user? > For instance, in async mode, if a silent bp is used, > how would the user ever know it is hit? And if the user > need not know, why would a frontend? Mostly, they're for commands lists that automatically resume. For instance, if you want to increment a counter every time a breakpoint is hit, you might mark it as: silent commands set $i++ continue end What to do with MI notifications in this case, I don't know... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery