RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:09:08PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>Daniel, did you mention somewhere that the debugger book used "logical" 
> >>and "physical" breakpoint?  If it does, it might be better to adopt its 
> >>terminology here.
> >
> >
> >No, but Joel did.  I'd rather not though; the name doesn't make as much
> >sense to me as Jim's suggestion, and I don't think that the one book
> >(even if it's close to the only book...) counts as enough of a
> >precedent to set terminology.
> 
> I know of two books, the other is the GDB internals.
> 
> I find "machine" is too vague and non-commital while "physical" strongly 
> suggests suggests that it is tangable or concrete.  "user" vs "logical" 
> is well, whatever (although "physical" and "logical" tend to go together 
> giving a familar paring).

I don't find "machine" particularly vague.  On the other hand, I find
"physical" inaccurate - doubly so for software (i.e. not hardware)
breakpoints.

I'll think about it some more.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer