RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8]

[Michael Snyder]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> My two cents:
> 
> It's not just breakpoints.  What happens when the user types:
> 
>   (gdb) disassemble Foo::Foo

That's true -- or taking a step back, we currently use one semantics
(and syntax) for all commands that take a source location as an argument
(basicly break and list).  Are we going to 'break' that?  I think it's
OK to do so, because for list, you really do mean a source location,
whereas for break, you may mean many target locations.

Disassemble doesn't share the same syntax/semantics (decode_line_1);
it has its own (I think?) -- but you're right, it's another command
that takes a source location and "translates" it into a target
location.

> Also, here is a use case to consider:
> 
>   (gdb) break *0x12345678
> 
> gdb has this notion that one source address corresponds to one
> object-code address, but now it's one source address corresponds
> to N object-code addresses.

Now I don't follow you.  "*0x12345678" isn't a source address.
Is it?  Unles you've got multiple memory address spaces or
something... something more deviant than just Harvard, which
we already know how to handle.