From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20954 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 16:12:18 -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 20947 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 16:12:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 16:12:17 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18972 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:09:34 -0400 Received: from node1.ott.qnx.com (hwlab1 [10.0.2.159]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA25690 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:12:15 -0400 Received: (from alain@localhost) by node1.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) id MAA10602 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 6 May 2003 12:12:15 -0400 Message-Id: <200305061612.MAA10602@node1.ott.qnx.com> Subject: Re: Catchpoint in GDB/MI To: drow@mvista.com (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:12:00 -0000 From: "Alain Magloire" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20030506153130.GA27989@nevyn.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at May 06, 2003 11:31:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00077.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. > Details please? 8-) Do you mean setting breakpoint on some special function used to throw exception __raise_exception(..)? How does it work ? > > > 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. > Yes and with this in mind, I would advocate to put the MI framework/commands in place even if they endup throwing "(not implemented)" on many platforms or c++ compilers.