From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4655 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2011 19:17:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 4641 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Oct 2011 19:16:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:16:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9SJGdSt017094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:16:39 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9SJGchs025164; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:16:38 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9SJGbmi023130; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:16:37 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Kevin Pouget Cc: pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Python Finish Breakpoints References: Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:26:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Kevin Pouget's message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:36:26 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00775.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Pouget writes: Phil> My own personal opinion is to abstract the details to the GDB Python Phil> code, instead of adding another flag to 'struct breakpoint'. That was Phil> the original ethos of adding a pointer inside the breakpoint struct to Phil> the Python breakpoint-object - so we can have access to the whole of the Phil> breakpoint object without breaking out pieces of it here and there. Kevin> yes, I totally agree with this opinion, and that's why I changed the Kevin> code arguing, Kevin> "what's for Python stays in Python" ! There are some other options available. You could subclass breakpoint and add a new field there. This would segregate the changes in the python subdirectory. This may be best. Alternatively you could make a bp_finish breakpoint. I'm not sure whether this is sufficient or whether you would also need an additional flag. If the latter you could make a bp_finish_python or something like that -- I said earlier that this was probably invasive, but grepping for bp_finish makes me think it wouldn't be too bad. Tom