Re: gdb Digest 26 Mar 2003 19:03:48 -0000 Issue 1129

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:49:42PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Either way, I think these are high-level table entries.  The user could 
> >>certainly view the mapping:
> >>
> >>maint print breakpoint
> >>Breakpoint 1 <template a::foo>FileFullOfTemplates.hh:27 at
> >>0x123 (b.cc:27), 0x234 (b.c:28), ...
> >>
> >>but the manipulation would still typically be high level.
> >
> >
> >This suggests that we need three levels then.
> 
> Not really.
> 
> A single user-level breakpoint would have a list of source-code 
> locations.  But those source code locations would be tightly bound to 
> that single user-level breakpoint.  It is strictly 1:N, not N:N.
> 
> Delete the user breakpoint and you delete its list of locations.  The 
> source code locations are iterated over when adding/deleting physical 
> breakpoints to the lower-level table.
> 
> On the other hand.  The user level breakpoint and physical breakpoint 
> tables have an N:N relationship.

OK, two levels.  We still need to think about the interface for the top
level though.  You want to be able to specify the set in some way...

This sort of design is not my strong point.

> >Does anyone know how other debuggers handle this?  I'm sure we're not
> >the first but it's been ages since I used a non-GDB debugger for
> >anything.
> 
> The model I'm describing lifted from a book, the author of which was 
> involved in borland's debugger.

Yes, I've heard of the book.  Does it cover things like inlined
functions?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer