From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6068 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2008 18:22:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6057 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2008 18:22:46 -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; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:22:26 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B744F98366; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:22:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC1198337; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:22:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KCIaU-0002yM-Pr; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:22:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: remote.c Z0 packet detection robustness Message-ID: <20080627182222.GA11364@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jonathan Larmour , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <48650D79.6080502@eCosCentric.com> <20080627163748.GA4724@caradoc.them.org> <48652EB5.2010008@eCosCentric.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48652EB5.2010008@eCosCentric.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00513.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:17:25PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 04:55:37PM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > >> 2008-06-27 Jonathan Larmour > >> > >> * remote.c (remote_insert_breakpoint): Ensure that if Z0 > >> unsupported and we fall back to memory_insert_breakpoint, we > >> use the unmodified requested address. > > > > Thanks for the clear explanation. This is almost OK - but you need to > > update bp_tgt if Z0 succeeds. Otherwise we may remove the breakpoint > > incorrectly. > > Is this better? Yes, this version is fine to commit. Thanks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery