This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:23:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]
- References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <vt27k3ffvv5.fsf@zenia.home>
> How about "user breakpoints" and "machine breakpoints"?
"How Debuggers Work" define "logical" and "physical". But I really
prefer Jim's proposal, especially the "user" one, as it sounds clearer
than "logical".
> In my ideal world, you'd get an explanation for why each address was
> chosen, when it's not obvious:
>
> (gdb) info break
> Num Type Disp Enb Address What
> 1 breakpoint keep y 0x08048354 in foo::foo (in-charge) at hello.c:8
> 0x08048364 in foo::foo (not-in-charge) at hello.c:8
> (gdb)
This looks very good to me. (although it's also fine not to provide the
explanation, it's not as important as seeing all the machine breakpoints).
--
Joel