From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4159 invoked by alias); 23 May 2005 18:19:18 -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 4138 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2005 18:19:11 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 May 2005 18:19:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4NIJApU006809 for ; Mon, 23 May 2005 14:19:10 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4NIJ4O10166; Mon, 23 May 2005 14:19:04 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4NIJ1a8012540; Mon, 23 May 2005 14:19:02 -0400 Message-ID: <42921E95.3040105@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:19:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution References: <428E53AD.7010306@redhat.com> <01c55de8$Blat.v2.4$7546d7a0@zahav.net.il> In-Reply-To: <01c55de8$Blat.v2.4$7546d7a0@zahav.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:16:29 -0700 >>From: Michael Snyder >> >> > Sounds like a very useful feature. However, I think we need to >> > support giving meaningful names to bookmarks, since a (more or less >> > arbitrary) number used by the target is going to lack any mnemonic >> > value. >> >>How about counting numbers, like we do with breakpoints? > > > That might be okay as well, but I consider the method of numbering > breakpoints as not an ideal one, either. It's impossible to manage > more than 3 breakpoints without "info breakpoints". More mnemonic > names could have allowed us to know what breakpoint we need to use > without consulting the table displayed by "info breakpoints". OK, then maybe we should make this a general feature -- add a name field for breakpoints, tracepoints, checkpoint/bookmarks, and in general such things as we have such lists for. Looking ahead, people may one day want to give names to threads, or even sets-of-threads.