From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH RFA #2] breakpoint.c: More check_duplicates() changes
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:35:00 -0000
Message-id: <1010512223535.ZM30908@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00272.html

The patch below supercedes the one that I recently posted in

    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-05/msg00267.html

It addresses the concerns that Eli Zaretskii and Mark Kettenis had
about the previous patch.  (Eli wanted a better explanation regarding
why it was okay to duplicate each of the types listed in the new
function duplicate_okay.  Mark wanted parens around the return
expression.)

Okay to apply?

Index: breakpoint.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/breakpoint.c,v
retrieving revision 1.37
diff -u -p -r1.37 breakpoint.c
--- breakpoint.c	2001/05/12 04:08:23	1.37
+++ breakpoint.c	2001/05/12 22:23:25
@@ -3735,6 +3735,43 @@ set_default_breakpoint (int valid, CORE_
   default_breakpoint_line = line;
 }
 
+/* Return true if the type of BPT is one whose address is permitted to
+   be a duplicate of some other breakpoint.
+
+   More specifically, each of the following breakpoint types will always
+   have a zero valued address and we don't want check_duplicates() to mark
+   breakpoints of any of these types to be a duplicate of an actual
+   breakpoint at address zero:
+
+      bp_watchpoint
+      bp_hardware_watchpoint
+      bp_read_watchpoint
+      bp_access_watchpoint
+      bp_catch_exec
+      bp_longjmp_resume
+      bp_catch_fork
+      bp_catch_vork
+
+  Another way to look at it is that the address field is irrelevant
+  for each of these breakpoint types and duplicate_okay() is simply
+  a predicate for determining whether it is meaningful to use the
+  address field for comparison purposes.  */
+
+static int
+duplicate_okay (struct breakpoint *bpt)
+{
+  enum bptype type = bpt->type;
+
+  return (type == bp_watchpoint
+	  || type == bp_hardware_watchpoint
+	  || type == bp_read_watchpoint
+	  || type == bp_access_watchpoint
+	  || type == bp_catch_exec
+	  || type == bp_longjmp_resume
+	  || type == bp_catch_fork
+	  || type == bp_catch_vfork);
+}
+
 /* Rescan breakpoints at the same address and section as BPT,
    marking the first one as "first" and any others as "duplicates".
    This is so that the bpt instruction is only inserted once.
@@ -3750,11 +3787,7 @@ check_duplicates (struct breakpoint *bpt
   CORE_ADDR address = bpt->address;
   asection *section = bpt->section;
 
-  /* Watchpoints are uninteresting.  */
-  if (bpt->type == bp_watchpoint
-      || bpt->type == bp_hardware_watchpoint
-      || bpt->type == bp_read_watchpoint
-      || bpt->type == bp_access_watchpoint)
+  if (duplicate_okay (bpt))
     return;
 
   ALL_BREAKPOINTS (b)
@@ -3762,7 +3795,8 @@ check_duplicates (struct breakpoint *bpt
 	&& b->enable != shlib_disabled
 	&& b->enable != call_disabled
 	&& b->address == address
-	&& (overlay_debugging == 0 || b->section == section))
+	&& (overlay_debugging == 0 || b->section == section)
+	&& !duplicate_okay (b))
     {
       /* Have we found a permanent breakpoint?  */
       if (b->enable == permanent)
@@ -3800,7 +3834,8 @@ check_duplicates (struct breakpoint *bpt
 		&& b->enable != shlib_disabled
 		&& b->enable != call_disabled
 		&& b->address == address
-		&& (overlay_debugging == 0 || b->section == section))
+		&& (overlay_debugging == 0 || b->section == section)
+		&& !duplicate_okay (b))
 	      b->duplicate = 1;
 	  }
     }