From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12315 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2002 14:45:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12112 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2002 14:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2002 14:45:13 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72E13D94; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D1098FA.4050201@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:45:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Keith Seitz , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Breakpoint events: revisited References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 > On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Keith Seitz wrote: > > >> Well, while working on converting MI over to use events instead of hooks, >> I noticed that GDB currently only notifies the UI about some internal >> breakpoints, not all of them. >> >> So (beat, beat): >> >> Do we still want to expose _all_ internal breakpoints to UIs via >> breakpoint events, or just some of them? Which ones? > > > My $0.02 would be that we should at least be consistent: either expose > all of them, or none. Yes. >> I have a patch which adds _all_ of them, and removes the stupid creation >> event from mention (removing the FIXME at the same time). > > > I tend to agree with this. > Andrew