Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA/breakpoint] Fix errors from disabled watchpoints
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:08:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030104230800.GE28756@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E14C79B.8A2FFD74@redhat.com>

On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 03:13:31PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 12:08:30PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Right now, if you set and then disable a watchpoint, you'll still memory
> > > > errors from it in two places.  One is fatal, and comes from
> > > > insert_breakpoints (); the other is just noisy, and comes from
> > > > breakpoint_re_set_one ().  Neither really serves any purpose.  If a
> > > > watchpoint is disabled, we don't need to check what its value is; we'll
> > > > check when we insert it.
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice to do the equivalet of a bp_shlib_disabled for watchpoints
> > > > on memory that isn't currently accessible but that's not really practical on
> > > > any OS I know of, so the user still has to hand-disable and hand-enable the
> > > > watchpoints.  But at least they don't have to _delete_ the watchpoints now.
> > > >
> > > > Is this OK?  No surprises in the testsuite on i386-linux.
> > >
> > > I'm not surprised that watchpoints were broken in this way,
> > > but after looking at your changes, I am surprised that the
> > > problem didn't show up in any other context.
> > >
> > > My only concern with your change is that you've changed
> > > the code from explicitly listing the excluded states, to
> > > assuming that they are all excluded except for one.  The
> > > problem that concerns me with that is, what if future states
> > > are added?
> > 
> > We were already being pretty inconsistent about which we checked; see
> > how half the checks I deleted were inclusive and the other half were
> > exclusive?
> > 
> > If we start adding states I suspect we'll need BREAKPOINT_ENABLED
> > (bp->state), or something along those lines.
> 
> Or BREAKPOINT_INSERTABLE, or something.  OK, I'll approve it.

Thanks, committed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


      reply	other threads:[~2003-01-04 23:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-12-28 10:23 Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-02 20:08 ` Michael Snyder
2003-01-02 21:22   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-02 23:13     ` Michael Snyder
2003-01-04 23:08       ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030104230800.GE28756@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox