From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26855 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 15:31:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26839 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 15:31:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 15:31:33 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19D4Q7-00060j-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 10:31:55 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19D4Pi-0007IY-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 11:31:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 15:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alain Magloire Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Catchpoint in GDB/MI Message-ID: <20030506153130.GA27989@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alain Magloire , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030506145944.GA27250@nevyn.them.org> <200305061516.LAA05153@node1.ott.qnx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305061516.LAA05153@node1.ott.qnx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:15:50AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:50:47AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote: > > > Bonjour > > > > > > Anyone working on putting catchpoints in GDB/MI. > > > If yes what is the semantics. > > > If no what is the best semantic? Completely OOB: > > > > > > -catch load > > > ^done > > > ... > > > > > > *stop,reason="shared-loaded",shared="libm.so" > > > > Do we even have any targets besides HP/UX where shared library > > catchpoints _work_? > > Probably none, in the gdb source tree. For example, catching exceptions > is probably compiler dependent 8-( .. I think. Do remember Daniel Berlin > proposing a scheme for gcc long long time ago, could not retrace the email > though ... darn! I've actually added catchpoints for exceptions back; but they'll just show up as breakpoints for now. If we want them to show up differently someone's going to have to work out (both CLI and MI) what they should look like. > > We need to fix them before we talk about their MI > > syntax, IMO. Similarly for most of the others. > > > > True, but there are a lot of MI commands that are define but > not implemented in the current tree or rather can not be implemented > in a clean way to be submit back. So not all gdb/mi are equal depending > on the distribution. But having the MI framework already in place is > a good step in normalizing(sp?). I'm not sure that catchpoints _can_ be normalized. The ones we have now are mostly extremely system dependent. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer