From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21596 invoked by alias); 11 May 2007 17:29:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 21587 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2007 17:29:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2007 17:29:45 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058384B267; Fri, 11 May 2007 12:29:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC06C4B262; Fri, 11 May 2007 12:29:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HmYw3-0006RW-3Q; Fri, 11 May 2007 13:29:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] [4/4] SPU overlay support: Bugfix in remove_breakpoint Message-ID: <20070511172943.GB22529@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070510215148.GB3187@caradoc.them.org> <200705102205.l4AM5j9e032747@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705102205.l4AM5j9e032747@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:05:45AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > The way to handle read-write overlay managers is to arrange for > the LMA to point to the backing-store RAM address where the > overlay has been swapped to, and remove the swapped-out breakpoint > at the *LMA* address. The existing code already handles that > correctly (assuming overlay_events_enabled is false, as it should > be for read-write overlay managers). I followed you right up until the end. Why should overlay_events_enabled be false for read-write overlay management? We could still be using hardware breakpoints (for example) with RAM-based overlays. We'd want notification events so that we could enable or disable the hardware breakpoint appropriately. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery