Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 12:19:08PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>On the infrastructure side we will be able to have an "impl_breakpoint"
> >>
> >>>> (short for implementation; better naming ideas?) for each location 
> >>>we are
> >>>> watching using hardware watchpoints.  This will simplify a lot of 
> >>>code.  It
> >>>> will also eventually become easier to object-orient our breakpoints.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>How about "user breakpoints" and "machine breakpoints"?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I like it.
> >
> >
> >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.
> 
> We should think of what would be most meaningful to the user --
> not to us.  What would "machine breakpoint" mean to a user?

Does anyone have any other comments on these eight submitted patches? 
So far, if I haven't lost any messages, the only disagreement is on
what to call impl_breakpoint:
  user / implementation (my implementation)
  user / machine (jim's suggestion)
  logical / physical (how debuggers work)
  virtual / actual (elena)
  abstract / actual (elena)

I think user / machine is the clearest of these.  Others disagree with
me - no clear consensus.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer