From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53946-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7620 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2008 21:55:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 7611 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2008 21:55:44 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:55:14 +0000
Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (136.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.136]) 	by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0A93DA261; 	Tue,  5 Feb 2008 10:55:11 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) 	id 50B518FC6D; Tue,  5 Feb 2008 10:55:04 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <18343.35253.667689.989145@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:55:00 -0000
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: (gdb-6.8) Discard breakpoint address if shared library is unloaded
In-Reply-To: <20080204214226.GF20922@adacore.com>
References: <20080204214226.GF20922@adacore.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 23.0.60.3
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2

 > As far as I could tell, the discussions pointed towards the idea
 > of removing the address and replacing it with "<PENDING>". Can we
 > expect to see a patch along these lines sometimes soon?

I think the patch below, based on my initial patch and Vladimir's subsequent
comment, will fix it.  No regressions.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob


*** breakpoint.c	04 Feb 2008 09:10:59 +1300	1.301
--- breakpoint.c	04 Feb 2008 09:11:02 +1300	
*************** print_one_breakpoint_location (struct br
*** 3425,3434 ****
    /* 4 */
    annotate_field (3);
    if (part_of_multiple)
!     ui_out_field_string (uiout, "enabled", 
! 			 loc->shlib_disabled 
! 			 ? (loc->enabled ? "y(p)" : "n(p)")
! 			 : (loc->enabled ? "y" : "n"));
    else
      {
        int pending = (b->loc == NULL || b->loc->shlib_disabled);
--- 3425,3431 ----
    /* 4 */
    annotate_field (3);
    if (part_of_multiple)
!     ui_out_field_string (uiout, "enabled", loc->enabled ? "y" : "n");
    else
      {
        int pending = (b->loc == NULL || b->loc->shlib_disabled);
*************** print_one_breakpoint_location (struct br
*** 3556,3561 ****
--- 3553,3560 ----
  	      ui_out_field_string (uiout, "addr", "<PENDING>");
  	    else if (header_of_multiple)
  	      ui_out_field_string (uiout, "addr", "<MULTIPLE>");
+ 	    else if (loc->shlib_disabled)
+ 	      ui_out_field_string (uiout, "addr", "<PENDING>");
  	    else
  	      ui_out_field_core_addr (uiout, "addr", loc->address);
  	  }