From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11214 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2010 13:51:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 11202 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2010 13:51:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:51:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0GDouLb029510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:50:56 -0500 Received: from fche.csb (vpn-232-251.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.232.251]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0GDotXI008728; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:50:55 -0500 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id F2C385811F; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:50:54 -0500 (EST) To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] "actionpoints"? References: <4B5106CB.5060204@codesourcery.com> From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4B5106CB.5060204@codesourcery.com> (Stan Shebs's message of "Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:22:35 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 Stan Shebs writes: > [...] > Although we've been doing the overloading for a long time, it's really > abusing our terminology, and has to be confusing to users. Would a new *single* term for the variety of possibilities make the situation less confusing? > It turns out there is a generic term available - "actionpoint". [...] In systemtap, we use the term "probe point" to identify a place (in code) or a time (asynchronous event). What happens at those points -- tracing or modifying variables or whatnot -- is programmable, and distinct from how the probe point was named. > A plus is that the term is sufficiently vague that it is sensible > for watchpoints, catchpoints, tracepoints, breakpoints, and the rest > of the menagerie, including future ideas we haven't thought of yet. > [...] This does not sound like a plus to me. A good term is *clear*. - FChE