From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9213 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2003 19:37:44 -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 9161 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2003 19:37:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2003 19:37:43 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2QJbeOr001240 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:37:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:37:32 -0800 Received: from apple.com (inghji.apple.com [17.201.22.240]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h2QJbdd06406 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:37:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:37:00 -0000 Subject: Re: gdb Digest 26 Mar 2003 19:03:48 -0000 Issue 1129 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Jim Ingham To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <1048705428.15342.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> Message-Id: <672C9F08-5FC2-11D7-B2F4-00039379E320@apple.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00361.txt.bz2 Andrew, Addressing this problem - driven by the needs of C++ developers - is something I was lobbying for time to do during this release cycle. But it got put off in favor of solving performance issues in gdb instead. However, for the next one (starting post June) release cycle I will probably get more time to look at this. I don't think we can just hide the physical breakpoints from the user however. It would be very useful to be able to say (gdb) break FileFullOfTemplates.cc:27 then decide that "no you weren't interested in the int specialization only the double one", or whatever... So being able to peer into the contents of the user-lever breakpoint is a good thing. OTOH, I should certainly be able to disable this breakpoint and not hit it for any variant... Jim On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 11:03 AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote: > > (Put simply, the things you learn when reading a book explaining how a > debugger should work :-) > > The `How Debuggers Work' [rosenberg] book describes a breakpoint > implementation broken into two parts: > > - high level user breakpoint list > This is what the user sees. One entry corresponds to each `break XXX' > command. That high level breakpoint then maps onto 1 or more ... > > - low level physical breakpoints (or watchpoints or ...) > One entry per physical breakpoint. When a breakpoint is hit, a > reverse map back to each high-level breakpoint for the event is done, > and then that breakpoint's handler is called. > > I might be mistaken, but I don't think GDB implemented things this > way. Instead, it has a single tangled table. > > Andrew > > -- Jim Ingham jingham@apple.com Developer Tools Apple Computer