This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:40:39 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'
- References: <m3mxk6pvbs.fsf@redhat.com> <201104121218.08910.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110412115308.GA384@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201104121430.24596.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3vcun8xuo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3zkjxdlnt.fsf@redhat.com>
>>>>> "Sergio" == Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com> writes:
Tom> Yesterday I started wondering if this patch series could go in if
Tom> re-expressed as catchpoints.
Sergio> IMHO this is OK. I would prefer to see this command as a breakpoint
Sergio> because I have always seen catchpoints as "event-oriented breakpoints",
Sergio> such as the calling/returning of a syscall, or a fork, or exec.
Yeah, I think this distinction generally makes sense.
However, I thought of one other reason we might prefer a catchpoint: if
we add "objfile:"-style linespecs ("break libc.so:malloc"), then we are
going to run into trouble if anybody tries to debug a program named
"probe" -- because "break probe:spec" is handled pretty early in
linespec.
Let me know what you think. In the absence of comments I am going to
implement this.
Tom