This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Catchpoint in GDB/MI
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Alain Magloire <alain at qnx dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:31:30 -0400
- Subject: Re: Catchpoint in GDB/MI
- References: <20030506145944.GA27250@nevyn.them.org> <200305061516.LAA05153@node1.ott.qnx.com>
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