From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-63968-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 474 invoked by alias); 24 May 2009 16:47:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 464 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2009 16:47:56 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 May 2009 16:47:50 +0000
Received: (qmail 29512 invoked from network); 24 May 2009 16:47:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 May 2009 16:47:48 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA]: Clean up debug printing of pc in gdbserver
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 16:47:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
References: <20090507031109.0CBFB84890@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20090507031109.0CBFB84890@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200905241747.58832.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00531.txt.bz2


> The debug printing of pc in linux-i386-low.c/linux-x86-64-low.c can
> use some clean up.
>=20
> - why restrict the printing to just x86?
> - the text that is printed for linux_resume_one_lwp is confusing
>=20
> Ok to check in?
>=20
> 2009-05-06 =A0Doug Evans =A0<dje@google.com>
>=20
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0* linux-x86-64-low.c (debug_threads): Remove decl=
aration.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(x86_64_get_pc,x86_64_set_pc): Remove debug print=
ing of pc.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0* linux-i386-low.c (debug_threads): Remove declar=
ation.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(i386_get_pc,i386_set_pc): Remove debug printing =
of pc.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0* linux-low.c (get_stop_pc): Print pc if debug_th=
reads.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(check_removed_breakpoint, linux_wait_for_lwp): D=
itto.
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(linux_resume_one_lwp): Ditto.

Looks OK to me.  Small nit below.

On Thursday 07 May 2009 04:11:08, Doug Evans wrote:
>    if (debug_threads
> -      && WIFSTOPPED (*wstatp))
> +      && WIFSTOPPED (*wstatp)
> +      && the_low_target.get_pc !=3D NULL)
>      {
>        struct thread_info *saved_inferior =3D current_inferior;
> +      CORE_ADDR stop_pc =3D (*the_low_target.get_pc) ();
>        current_inferior =3D (struct thread_info *)
>         find_inferior_id (&all_threads, child->head.id);
> -      /* For testing only; i386_stop_pc prints out a diagnostic.  */
> -      if (the_low_target.get_pc !=3D NULL)
> -       get_stop_pc ();
> +      fprintf (stderr, "linux_wait_for_lwp: pc is %08lx\n", (long) stop_=
pc);
>        current_inferior =3D saved_inferior;
>      }

Can we rename that `stop_pc' variable to, say, `pc', so we're
consistent throughout?  We can think of the `stop_pc' as having
always the decr_pc_after_break adjustment applied.

--=20
Pedro Alves