From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-75818-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25723 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2010 14:43:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 25715 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Sep 2010 14:43:54 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:43:43 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L9K00D00E6Y7Q00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:43:41 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.123.60]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L9K00CYJE8RN2B0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:43:41 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:51:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Add visible flag to breakpoints.
In-reply-to: <m38w2j72jd.fsf@redhat.com>
To: pmuldoon@redhat.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <838w2jpa00.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <m38w2j72jd.fsf@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00513.txt.bz2

> From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:02:14 +0100
> 
> Currently this visibility flag is only accessible through the Python
> breakpoint code.  If the visible keyword is set when the breakpoint is
> created, it will not be mentioned (only the new breakpoint observer will
> be called), and the breakpoint will not be enumerated via 'info
> breakpoints'.

What will happen if there's some low-level failure in inserting such a
breakpoint?  Won't GDB display an error message citing a breakpoint
that "doesn't exist", as far as the user is concerned?

> -defaults to @code{BP_BREAKPOINT}.  The optional @var{wp_class}
> +defaults to @code{BP_BREAKPOINT}.  The optional @var{visible} argument
> +allows the breakpoint to become invisible to the user.  The breakpoint
> +will neither be reported when created, or will it be enumerated in the
                                          ^^
"nor" should be used here.

Also, consider using "listed" or "shown" instead of "enumerated".  I
think the former 2 alternatives make the text easier to read without
losing anything.

> +output from @samp{info breakpoints} (but will be enumerated with the
> +@samp{maint info breakpoints} command).

I believe we use @code markup for commands, not @samp.

> +@defivar Breakpoint visible
> +This attribute holds the breakpoint's visibility flag --- the identifier used to
                                                        ^^^^^
No spaces are needed around the em-dash.

Okay with those changes.

Thanks.