From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26296 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2010 18:18:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 26287 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2010 18:18:43 -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 18:18:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF002BABEE; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:18:35 -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 10lwUeQxSaTR; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E3D2BAAF2; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 99019F5970; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:18:19 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: stan@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] "actionpoints"? Message-ID: <20100118181819.GN5800@adacore.com> References: <4B5106CB.5060204@codesourcery.com> <20100118064348.GA1914@adacore.com> <83tyuj70yr.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83tyuj70yr.fsf@gnu.org> 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/msg00156.txt.bz2 > > I don't think we should change all the user interface (eg: info > > breakpoints") where it is already clear what the output is about. > > ??? How is it clear? "info break" displays all ``actionpoints'' > regardless of their kind, last time I tried. Am I missing something? Yeah, well, the command is misnamed. We can introduce aliases and do a gradual transition, if we want. But I think that'd bring very little actual benefit. However, I don't think that this is enough for us to give up on the idea. We have a chance to: 1. Improve the code - the current overload of "breakpoint" in various places such as to_can_use_hw_breakpoint is just misleading, and "point" just requires extra thinking every time I read it. It's misleading too. "*point" is less misleading, but how do you write *point in a C identifier? 2. Improve the documentation and error messages. If we introduce a new, well defined and documented terminology, that says ``for GDB, actionpoint means any of [...]'', then we can start using it. If, people come back to us, and ask: <>, we can certainly explain that this is historical, and that we don't want to change it because it's been used for 20 years. We can't fix it all to make it perfect, but I think that introducing a new term would still make it better. -- Joel