This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [python] [doc] PR 12930/12802 (clarify Breakpoint::stop doco)
- From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, eli at gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:58:27 +0100
- Subject: Re: [python] [doc] PR 12930/12802 (clarify Breakpoint::stop doco)
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: pmuldoon at redhat dot com
Pedro Alves <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thursday 06 October 2011 11:58:51, Phil Muldoon wrote:
>> This patch address the PRs 12930, and 12802 which both arise from
>> confusion regarding the scope of actions in the Breakpoint::stop
>> callback. I have added some documentation to clarify.
>> Pedro, please excuse the gratuitous CC, but beyond Eli's normal review
>> can you please fact-check the documentation to make sure I am not
>> writing something about states that is incorrect.
> Thanks! Looks good fact-wise. I think infcalls will make sense to call here
> (we do support them in the normal breakpoint condition), but that
> supposedly doesn't leave the inferior's state unaltered, so we're good.
> I could be made possible to self delete a breakpoint in the callback,
> but that's not the current state of affairs, it seems.
I'm not opposed to allowing the user to delete, but my view is that
"stop" should make decisions, and not alter state. OTOH, I'm not
strongly moved other than personal preferences, so I can remove that
line if need be.