On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:43:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>Well, throw/catch events will be (haven't done it yet) implemented
>using (some kind of) breakpoints. Whether they will be in the table or
>not is a different question. I personally think that the way
>catchpoints are handled at the moment is all wrong, since it relies on
>the to_wait method to determine what event occured; which is perfect
>for event reporting mechanisms and awful for events synthesized by
>breakpoints.
The software single step breakpoint, has a similar problem. One theory
is to use the breakpoint table for them as well. The current interfaces
definitly do not lend themselves to such a model.
Hmmmmmmmm. I have some ideas how this would be done. I'll stew on it
and bring it up after 5.3 branches. It would involve doing great
violence to handle_inferior_event, unfortunately; but sometimes we've
got to take risks...
It can't be less violent than my patch to separate bpstop_stop_status()
from the code that prints the stop status.