From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25716 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2007 20:59:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 25707 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Dec 2007 20:59:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C384998129; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:59:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D0E9811F; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:59:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J40aJ-0000Mu-P6; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:59:39 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: delete_breakpoint: don't try to insert other breakpoints Message-ID: <20071216205939.GI22905@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200711142324.11319.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200711142324.11319.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:24:10PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > The delete_breakpoint function tries to check if the > breakpoint being deleted is inserted in inferior, and if > so, searched for breakpoints that are set at the same address > and tries to insert them. However, GDB removes breakpoint > from the inferior immediately when inferior is stopped, > so this code will never run. Removing this code has > no effect on test results. > > (And generally, if that function needed to insert breakpoints, > it should have used insert_breakpoints, instead of duplicating > the logic somewhat). > > OK? I believe that another version of this patch, which replaces the wrong code with more useful behavior, is part of your keep breakpoints inserted RFC, so this patch is withdrawn. Let me know if I'm wrong :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery