From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24308 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2008 19:10:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24298 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2008 19:10:59 -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; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:10:39 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C57D98415; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:10:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFBA9805C; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:10:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KFw6e-0003Ak-O2; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:10:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fix execl.exp sporadic failures Message-ID: <20080707191036.GC11544@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200807030143.08682.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200807030143.08682.pedro@codesourcery.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: 2008-07/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:43:08AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > 2008-07-03 Pedro Alves > > * breakpoint.c (mark_breakpoints_out): Make public. > (update_breakpoints_after_exec): Don't call mark_breakpoints_out > here. Update comment. > * breakpoint.h (mark_breakpoints_out): Declare. > > * linux-nat.c (linux_handle_extended_wait): On > TARGET_WAITKIND_EXECD, call mark_breakpoints_out. > * inf-ttrace.c (inf_ttrace_wait): Likewise. I don't like this patch - it duplicates knowledge into each GDB target that should be global - but your logic is sound. It's OK. > + /* There used to be a call to mark_breakpoints_out here with the > + following comment: > + > + Doing this first prevents the badness of having > + delete_breakpoint() write a breakpoint's current "shadow > + contents" to lift the bp. That shadow is NOT valid after an > + exec()! > + > + The concern is valid, but it was found that there are logical > + places to delete breakpoints after detecting an exec and before > + reaching here. The call has since moved closer to where the each > + target detects an exec. */ > + Please remove this comment, or write one that describes the current state (bonus points for an assertion). Comments that describe how GDB used to be grow more confusing with their age. > /* The binary we used to debug is now gone, and we're updating > breakpoints for the new binary. Until we're done, we should not This comment is now out of date, but it's removed by the other patch I just approved, very nice :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery