From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14261 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2010 06:44:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 14251 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2010 06:44:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:44:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBF72BAB64; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id itxUBWtLin1s; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799DB2BAB62; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:44:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 31483F5970; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:43:48 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] "actionpoints"? Message-ID: <20100118064348.GA1914@adacore.com> References: <4B5106CB.5060204@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B5106CB.5060204@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00151.txt.bz2 > One of the issues that has come up regularly in our tracepoint work > is what GDB's messages to the user should say when they are > referring to various combinations of tracepoints and breakpoints. I like the idea of having a term that means either breakpoint/watchpoint/ tracepoint, etc. How about "eventpoint"? "actionpoint" sounds OK to me too. We can officially document that term to explain to the user what it means and start using it in our error messages. I would also like us to start using it in lieu of "point", or "*point" as I'm starting to see. "point" has been used in gdbserver for a while, and might be already established enough to be understandable, but I just find that it always slows me down when I read this term, it's never fluid. "eventpoint" or "actionpoint" would be better. I don't think we should change all the user interface (eg: info breakpoints") where it is already clear what the output is about. If it's about breakpoints only, we should continue using the more precise term of "breakpoint", etc. However, error or informational messages could be easier to read, IMO, if we used a standard term instead if breakpoint/watchpoint/tracepoint or even just "point". Incidentally, there is a target_ops routine "to_can_use_hw_breakpoint" which is meant to be used to query the target about support for any of the actionpoint/eventpoint kinds. The purpose of this routine would be clearer if renamed to "to_can_use_hw_eventpoint". Did I mention that I'm partial to "eventpoint"? ;-) I think it's because it's the terminology used on VxWorks, but I am not sure. In any case, actionpoint source just as nice, and either is a fine choice to me. -- Joel