From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2056 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2006 23:19:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2048 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2006 23:19:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:19:19 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k22NIjqc027671; Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:18:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k22NIi0d010239; Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:18:44 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k22NIiSe027004; Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:18:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200603022318.k22NIiSe027004@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060302231042.GA22458@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:10:42 -0500) Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060302231042.GA22458@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:10:42 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:01:52AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:17:11 -0500 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > > This nasty, mechanical patch adds "len" arguments to > > > target_remove_breakpoint and target_remove_hw_breakpoint. The goal is > > > to allow BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC to include heuristics, which may possibly > > > change between when a breakpoint is inserted and when it is removed; > > > in order to stay in sync, we need to always remove breakpoints in the > > > same way that we inserted them. > > > > > > There's not much more to say about this patch. It's big, obvious, and > > > pretty ugly. Any comments on this? Does it look OK? > > > > Yuck! It really is ugly. For one thing, I think it is a bit > > pointless, to add a the BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC() to targets where we know > > the length of a breakpoint instruction is fixed. > > > > Another thing is that I think the order of the arguments of > > target_remove_breakpoint() is wrong. I think it makes sense to see > > your "len" argument as the length of the saved memory. Then it is > > more logical to make "len" the last argument of > > target_remove_breakpoint(). > > > > However, doesn't it make more sense to have target_insert_breakpoint() > > save the length instead of using BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC() to ask for it? > > If you want me to do that, I'll do that instead. It requires touching > twice as many target functions. Writing the changelog for this one > took long enough, so forgive me if I wait a while before trying it > again :-) You're touching a fairly fundamental piece of the breakpoint infrastructure here. I think it is worth thinking about this for a bit longer. My comments certainly weren't "demands", so I'm perfectly fine with discussing this a bit more before you rush towards changing your patch ;-). Mark