minimalistic MI catch support
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@false.org
Fri Feb 10 20:20:00 GMT 2006
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:15:58AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> OK thanks for explaining the difference. I would still say that they are
> a _bit_ like breakpoints (they stop execution if fork or exec are called)
> and I guess thats why their details are given in "info breakpoints".
>
> Are you saying "catch fork" and "catch exec" aren't at all like
> "catch catch" and "catch throw" which do have addresses? If so, perhaps
> some clearer distinction could be made to the user/in MI output.
I think Eli's convinced me on this point; we should hide the addresses,
at least in "info breakpoints".
"catch catch" is a pretty generic concept. When implemented on a GNU
v3 binary, it uses a breakpoint; when implemented on an old HP-UX aCC
binary, apparently, it used an out-of-band event just like "catch
fork". Thus the difference.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list