Re: [PATCH 2/6] Introduce `pre_expanded sals'

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

>>>>>> "Sergio" == Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Tom> Yesterday I started wondering if this patch series could go in if
> Tom> re-expressed as catchpoints.
>
> Sergio> IMHO this is OK.  I would prefer to see this command as a breakpoint
> Sergio> because I have always seen catchpoints as "event-oriented breakpoints",
> Sergio> such as the calling/returning of a syscall, or a fork, or exec.
>
> However, I thought of one other reason we might prefer a catchpoint: if
> we add "objfile:"-style linespecs ("break libc.so:malloc"), then we are
> going to run into trouble if anybody tries to debug a program named
> "probe" -- because "break probe:spec" is handled pretty early in
> linespec.

All right, I see what you mean.  Personally, I think that if this
behavior happens, then it means we should probably fix linespec in order
to evaluate the `probe:' part earlier.

Anyway, as I said in my earlier reply, I think that holding the stap
patch because of this change in particular is something we may not want
(I certainly don't), so for me this is the strongest argument for why we
could change it from breakpoint to catchpoint.

> Let me know what you think.  In the absence of comments I am going to
> implement this.

As I said in the beginning, I'm OK with that change.  But obviously I'm
not a maintainer, and I'm also an interested part in this being accepted
:-).