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]
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: ac131313 at redhat dot com, drow at mvista dot com, ezannoni at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:36:22 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <200310152213.h9FMDoCE028172@duracef.shout.net>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
Michael Snyder writes:
Disassemble doesn't share the same syntax/semantics (decode_line_1);
it has its own (I think?) -- but you're right, it's another command
that takes a source location and "translates" it into a target
location.
Yeah, we are in agreement here. My point is that there are
"source" locations (or whatever we want to call them)
and "target" locations (or whatever we want to call them).
We have to go back to the manual and the design stage and separate
all these out as separate concepts.
OK, yes, agreed.
mec> (gdb) break *0x12345678
ms> Now I don't follow you. "*0x12345678" isn't a source address.
ms> Is it?
Ah, I am just saying that this is a user command that is oriented
towards "target" locations. So we can't just hide the concept
of "target" location from people, because that concept is already
present in the input language.
Oh yes, of course. I don't mean to make the concept go away,
just not to reveal it (if avoidable) when the user didn't ask.
Just as the user can get the value of a variable without being
told the variable's location -- but can still obtain the location
if desired.