* [RFC] Breakpoint events: revisited
@ 2002-06-18 11:00 Keith Seitz
2002-06-18 22:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Keith Seitz @ 2002-06-18 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
Hi,
Ok, I hate to beat a dead horse, BUT...
A long time ago, I proposed eradicating UI notification for internal
breakpoints. It was argued at the time that they should be available to UI
writers wishing to expose these things to some class of users. Fair
enough.
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?
I have a patch which adds _all_ of them, and removes the stupid creation
event from mention (removing the FIXME at the same time).
Keith
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Breakpoint events: revisited
2002-06-18 11:00 [RFC] Breakpoint events: revisited Keith Seitz
@ 2002-06-18 22:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
2002-06-19 7:45 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2002-06-18 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keith Seitz; +Cc: gdb
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.
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Breakpoint events: revisited
2002-06-18 22:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2002-06-19 7:45 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-06-19 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Keith Seitz, gdb
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-06-19 14:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-06-18 11:00 [RFC] Breakpoint events: revisited Keith Seitz
2002-06-18 22:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
2002-06-19 7:45 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox