From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8091 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2006 01:41:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 8078 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2006 01:41:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:41:38 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FVIk9-00018L-2m; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:41:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints Message-ID: <20060417014133.GA4169@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060411214613.GA702@nevyn.them.org> <200604120943.k3C9hYJ8012016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412125712.GA22145@nevyn.them.org> <200604121837.k3CIbMwu004466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412184717.GA29980@nevyn.them.org> <443EC947.9060109@redhat.com> <200604162349.k3GNnNhl006336@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604162349.k3GNnNhl006336@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2006-04/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 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