Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:49:23AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> However, my point is that we're creating needless abstraction layers
> here, and opening the way for potentially big changes in the target
> interface.  We currently have a well defined interface that inserts a
> software breakpoint at a specific address, and saves the contents into
> a buffer provided by the high-level code.  That interface has a
> problem in the sense that it doesn't record actually how many valid
> bytes are in that buffer.  This simplest fix is simply adding that
> missing length to the interface.

Have you read any of my arguments as to why the abstraction is not
needless?  I haven't seen a response to any of them, just a dismissal.
I think I gave some useful examples; I'm a little frustrated that you
keep ignoring them.

The interface is not so well defined as your paragraph suggests. In
fact, the target MAY save the contents, not DOES.  I'm pretty sure that
some don't.  I let this mislead me into thinking that saving the
contents was optional.  In fact it isn't.  deprecated_read_memory_nobpt
uses the shadow contents, and uses BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC.  Whatever we
decide on, I'll make sure that gets fixed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery