This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Allow CLI and Python conditions to be set on same breakpoint
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, pmuldoon at redhat dot com, eliz at gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:15:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Allow CLI and Python conditions to be set on same breakpoint
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <m3siv0q29h dot fsf at seba dot sebabeach dot org> <m3k3gaq3gw dot fsf at seba dot sebabeach dot org> <87bo1mwvqg dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <52853D8A dot 5070908 at redhat dot com> <CAP9bCMRMZGrBgpToFp4RzA0f9TthKy8Kg9hqL_ENX=6B0yUdzg at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <email@example.com> writes:
Doug> Need More Data.
That goes both ways.
If you still prefer the other semantics, perhaps you could explain why.
Doug> In this scenario, when would one typically add a CLI condition to such
Doug> a Python interpreter breakpoint?
It's a flaw in this example. But the example is just an example. I
would hope it does not need to be bulletproof in order to persuade one
that perhaps the proposed semantics are not obviously ideal.
Doug> Plus if this is really a check_status thing then I wonder if
Doug> gdb.Breakpoint is going down the wrong path and we should be providing
Doug> a class where users can override breakpoint_ops.
Yes. However that ran aground of difficulties when attempted. The main
issue, I think -- and this goes back to the ABI business -- is that
breakpoint_ops are a bit weird; and breakpoint.c is clearly in need of
some refactoring and more replacement of bptype checks with method
I'd be delighted if somebody did this. It hasn't made the top of our