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]
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:09:08PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> > >>Daniel, did you mention somewhere that the debugger book used "logical"
> > >>and "physical" breakpoint? If it does, it might be better to adopt its
> > >>terminology here.
> > >
> > >
> > >No, but Joel did. I'd rather not though; the name doesn't make as much
> > >sense to me as Jim's suggestion, and I don't think that the one book
> > >(even if it's close to the only book...) counts as enough of a
> > >precedent to set terminology.
> >
> > I know of two books, the other is the GDB internals.
> >
> > I find "machine" is too vague and non-commital while "physical" strongly
> > suggests suggests that it is tangable or concrete. "user" vs "logical"
> > is well, whatever (although "physical" and "logical" tend to go together
> > giving a familar paring).
>
> I don't find "machine" particularly vague. On the other hand, I find
> "physical" inaccurate - doubly so for software (i.e. not hardware)
> breakpoints.
>
> I'll think about it some more.
abstract/actual or virtual/actual?
elena
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer