From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23099 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2002 16:56:12 -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 23091 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2002 16:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2002 16:56:09 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18O0Po-00046Y-00; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:56:32 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18NyYH-0004Yb-00; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:57:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Fork event updates, part the tenth Message-ID: <20021216165709.GA17039@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021215200836.GA22182@nevyn.them.org> <3DFE02F0.1020708@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DFE02F0.1020708@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00476.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:44:32AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Right now, there are four calls to bpstat_stop_status in infrun.c. Three > >of > >them are for catchpoints; right now, catchpoints should not be affected by > >DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK, because they aren't breakpoints. Hopefully > >DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK will be gone from this code if anyone ever has a target > >where they _are_ breakpoints. > > > >So, since a catchpoint is not a software breakpoint, we can just pass "1" > >for NOT_A_SW_BREAKPOINT. This prevents an incorrect PC decrement on > >i386-linux with the upcoming fork catchpoint patches. Committed. > > Er, where is the fire? Nothing involving decr pc after break is > obvious. I think here you should at least be seeking a second opinion. This is in blocks of code conditioned on TARGET_WAITKIND_{FORKED,VFORKED,EXECD}. There are only two targets that ever return these; HP/UX (which has no DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK) and i386-linux (in my working tree, which has DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK, but in which catchpoints are unaffected by it). The argument is labeled NOT_A_SW_BREAKPOINT, and these are known to not be software breakpoints. How much simpler can it get? The fire is apparently that I lack your indefatigable patience. I have been submitting this same feature for several months now and it's blocking me from doing anything else substantial without tripping on my own feet repeatedly. You've stated your preference; I'll throttle back and find something else to do in the mean time. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer