From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15030 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2009 23:25:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 15021 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2009 23:25:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr1.ericy.com (HELO imr1.ericy.com) (198.24.6.9) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:25:40 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n15NVIjF031615; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:31:20 -0600 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:24:42 -0600 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06CB0F19@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF53@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <200902051225.41426.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090205224242.GA1306@caradoc.them.org> From: "Marc Khouzam" To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" Cc: "Vladimir Prus" , 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/msg00051.txt.bz2 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Thu 2/5/2009 5:42 PM > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 05:29:26PM -0500, Marc Khouzam wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > 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? >=20 > 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: >=20 > silent > commands > set $i++ > continue > end >=20 > What to do with MI notifications in this case, I don't know... In the scenario you mention, having a proper *stopped event for=20 silent bp would pretty much be unnoticed by the user thanks to the=20 *running event that immediately follows (the frontend would stop and=20 resume right away.) Same situation for the reverse-finish situation. What we have now is an empty *stopped event and that is not much=20 use for a frontend and would probably cause more confusion than good. So, based on Volodya's explanation (that I agree with), and Daniel's explanation, it seems that there should be a *stopped event for=20 silent bp, as long as it is complete. Or at least that is what I believe. Thanks for your explanations. Marc