RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]

[Jim Ingham]

On Oct 9, 2003, at 12:49 PM, gdb-patches-digest-help@sources.redhat.com 
wrote:

> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> Date: October 9, 2003 12:33:14 PM PDT
> To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]
>
>
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:10:46AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:05:02 -0400
>>>> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
>>>>
>>>>> (gdb) info break
>>>>> Num Type           Disp Enb Address    What
>>>>> 1   breakpoint     keep y   0x08048354 in foo::foo (in-charge) at 
>>>>> hello.c:8
>>>>>                            0x08048364 in foo::foo (not-in-charge) 
>>>>> at hello.c:8
>>>>> (gdb)
>>>>
>>>> Here's the problem that I see.
>>>>
>>>> For foo::foo, there are two of these things.  Having them both in 
>>>> the
>>>> list would be nice.  Really nice.
>>>>
>>>> For inline_accessor_fn there are 3.8 million.  In addition to 
>>>> needing
>>>> to do a whole lot of work on GDB internals before we could survive 
>>>> this
>>>> (memory usage; ptrace thrashing inserting and removing them; linked
>>>> lists of breakpoints; and that's just the beginning) this has some
>>>> severe user interface implications.  We don't want to print out all
>>>> those addresses by default!
>>>>
>>>> I'm open to suggestions on how to deal with this.
>>>
>>> How about a switch to "info break"?  By default, show only the
>>> in-charge breakpoint, but if the user says "info break -all" or some
>>> such, show the other 3.8 million minus one.
>>> From a user interface perspective, I got a really strong negative
>> pushback the last time I tried to add a switch to any GDB command.
>
> OK, how about modeling after "info reg" vs. "info all-reg"?
> Giving us "info break" and a new "info all-break".
>

This seems a little odd, because then if I want to see the 
implementations for one user breakpoint - like where were all the 
template instantiations for a file:line breakpoint in a C++ template 
(*) then I say:

info all-break 5

Not sure what a better word is but "all" doesn't convey that you want 
more details about each...  Maybe "full" is better, like "info 
break-full"?

Jim

(*) Yes, I know that we can't do this yet, but...
--
Jim Ingham                                   jingham@apple.com
Developer Tools
Apple Computer