This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: implement "catch signal"
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, Andrà P Ãnitz <andre dot poenitz at mathematik dot tu-chemnitz dot de>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com
- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:06:18 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: implement "catch signal"
- References: <874nkpv03j.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121202093807.GA21883@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87y5hfvu5v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121203193713.GA10256@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87obibvsb1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121203202233.GA23933@klara.mpi.htwm.de> <20121203203126.GA13490@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87mwxpvh4y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121207184456.GA15968@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87ehj1ve4f.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121207200401.GA20329@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87d2y8v0b1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <877godon2q.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87r4mlkslm.fsf@redhat.com>
>>>>> "Dodji" == Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com> writes:
Tom> The alternative is something like type="catchpoint",catch-type="load".
Dodji> I tend to prefer this alternative, but really, I don't have any strong
Dodji> opinion about this. I'd say that if the information about the different
Dodji> types of catchpoints is present, it's fine.
Dodji> Just curious, what would be the drawback of this alternative, compared
Dodji> to, say, type='catch-load'?
Just that it is wordier, and it seems odd to have two "type" fields.
I went ahead and did it this way.
I'll send new patches momentarily.
Tom