From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3981 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2019 18:21:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 3973 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jul 2019 18:21:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:689 X-HELO: mail-wm1-f65.google.com Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f65.google.com) (209.85.128.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 18:21:47 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id c6so541860wml.0 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm16576416wra.74.2019.07.01.11.21.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Don't skip prologue for explicit line breakpoints in assembler To: Andrew Burgess References: <20190612123403.14348-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20190619181147.69974f43@f29-4.lan> <20190620205759.GI23204@embecosm.com> <20190620232314.GJ23204@embecosm.com> <406d910b-8b63-1e93-d340-7e9ab841ad0b@redhat.com> <20190622110558.GK23204@embecosm.com> <20190701171213.GU23204@embecosm.com> Cc: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <1a5ad9a3-ec42-c733-fee8-fc051e6d31de@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 18:21:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190701171213.GU23204@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 On 7/1/19 6:12 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >> Did you check whether we're already setting explicit_line when >> parsing "b -line N", i.e., when using the explicit locations syntax? > In current HEAD explicit_line will only get set for the clear, edit, > list, and 'info line' commands. Any variation of setting breakpoints > will never set explicit_line. OK, but I was also curious to know whether your patch already handles that case, or whether we need to set explicit_line somewhere else too. Maybe it already works if we end up in decode_digits_ordinary too with the explicit syntax. Thanks, Pedro Alves