From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14559 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2007 21:45:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 14550 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2007 21:45:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:45:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 25464 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2007 21:45:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Nov 2007 21:45:35 -0000 To: "Rob Quill" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Removing deprecated breakpoint functions References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Rob Quill's message of "Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:36:04 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-11/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2 "Rob Quill" writes: > I am trying to figure out how to remove > deprecated_insert/remove_raw_breakpoint and was wondering if it is > acceptable to substitute a call to them with a call to the > break_command() function as this will handle all the breakpoint chain > related things, or is this function too high level and another one > should be used? Yes, those are too high-level; I think 'set_raw_breakpoint' is more what you're looking for. See the uses in breakpoint.c, things like 'create_fork_event_catchpoint' might serve as helpful examples.