From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15148 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2002 05:27:05 -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 15083 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2002 05:26:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2002 05:26:59 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA27896; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:24:52 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:27:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Keith Seitz cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Breakpoint events: revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00142.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. > 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.