From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17495 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 15:49:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17483 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 15:49:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 15:49:50 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17fjME-0004dK-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:49:50 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17fjMe-00078A-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:50:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/ob] not_a_breakpoint -> not_a_sw_breakpoint Message-ID: <20020816155016.GA27242@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D5D1C3E.8070203@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5D1C3E.8070203@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 11:37:34AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > This patch renames the ``not_a_breakpoint'' parameter of > bpstat_stop_status() to the more correct ``not_a_sw_breakpoint'' so that > it is clear that it is indicating nothing about hardware breakpoints. > > committed, > Andrew Great. I'm going to have to think about this a little more though; if you look in infrun.c you'll see that this parameter sometimes comes from catchpoints, which is unfortunate since we have nowhere that indicates whether a catchpoint is affected by DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK or not. (For i386/Linux, when I'm done with it, I believe that throw and catch catchpoints WILL be affected by decr_pc_after_break.... and that fork/exec/vfork catchpoints WON'T be. I had to hack around this in my work tree.) Do I remember someone commenting that DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK was a mess, perhaps? I think I do... :) -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer