From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7541 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 17:38:44 -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 7534 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 17:38:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 17:38:44 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17fl3d-0004n5-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:38:46 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17fl3r-0000OA-00; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:38:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:38:00 -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: <20020816173856.GA1417@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D5D1C3E.8070203@ges.redhat.com> <20020816155016.GA27242@nevyn.them.org> <3D5D3787.30005@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5D3787.30005@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00429.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:33:59PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > 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. > > See my e-mail to Kevin. it decides if > DECR_PC_AFTER_[SOFTWARE_]BREAK[POINT_TRAP] should be applied. > > > (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.) > > Are throw/catch events implemented using software breakpoints that are > entered into the breakpoint table? > > One of the characteristics of the software single step breakpoints is > that they are not entered into the breakpoint table. This is why Joel > needs to hide them from core GDB :-) > > I think fork/exec events can be treated separatly. Well, throw/catch events will be (haven't done it yet) implemented using (some kind of) breakpoints. Whether they will be in the table or not is a different question. I personally think that the way catchpoints are handled at the moment is all wrong, since it relies on the to_wait method to determine what event occured; which is perfect for event reporting mechanisms and awful for events synthesized by breakpoints. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer