From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C74C3858D35 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:32:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 5C74C3858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B47A31EAB8; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] gdb: support for eBPF From: Simon Marchi To: "Jose E. Marchesi" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200713122458.21339-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> <20200713122458.21339-2-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1a24ad7b-0083-a045-82ae-26985189917e@simark.ca> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:32:20 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 23:32:28 -0000 On 2020-08-01 7:25 p.m., Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2020-07-13 8:24 a.m., Jose E. Marchesi via Gdb-patches wrote: >> +/* Implement the breakpoint_kind_from_pc gdbarch method. */ >> + >> +static int >> +bpf_breakpoint_kind_from_pc (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR *start_pc) >> +{ >> + /* We support just one kind of breakpoint. */ >> + return 8; > > Please document (or use a macro / const int to make it clear) that the kind is > also the instruction size. > > IMO it would make more sense to call the first kind 0, and the subsequent ones > (if there is ever any) 1, 2, 3, etc, since you could have two breakpoint kinds > that have the same size. > > Otherwise, this is OK. > > Simon > Oh, and would you like to add an entry in the MAINTAINERS file of GDB? I suppose it would make sense to have you there, unless you can think of somebody else? Simon