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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:40:13AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >Does anyone have any other comments on these eight submitted patches?
> 
> Ask michael.

That's what I was doing :)

> >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.
> 
> Pretty clear objections to your suggestions though:

Eh, if you're going to count beans...

> 
> user/impl:
> + danielj

Some objections but I don't recall.  I'm still OK with this one because
implementation is the clearest way I can find to say what they are. 
They're the breakpoints used to implement.

> user/mach:
> + danielj, jimb
> - cagney
> - michael
> - joel?

That's +joel and +carlton.  I'm not sure whether Michael was
objecting, but rereading his message it seems plausible - Michael?

> logical/physical
> + cagney
> + joel?

Looks like -joel to me.  And -danielj was pretty clear, I think.  I
dislike this because logical/physical breakpoints says to me that one
of them is placed at a logical (virtual) address and the other at a
physical address.

> virtual/actual
> + elena?
> abstract/actual
> + elena?

Actual doesn't have the right ring to me, and neither does abstract,
but these are moving it the right direction.  I could just use
user/lowlevel or highlevel/lowlevel, to muddy the waters further.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer