From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32258 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2009 21:46:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 32247 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2009 21:46:11 -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; Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:46:05 +0000 Received: (qmail 19295 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2009 21:46:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Jun 2009 21:46:03 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Error reporting during insert_breakpoints Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Michael Snyder References: <4A26E026.2000705@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4A26E026.2000705@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906032246.44508.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 03 June 2009 21:42:14, Michael Snyder wrote: > Two small changes > > 1) If insert_breakpoints fails during stepping, "keep_going()" > contains a TRY_CATCH block, but does not print the exception error. > If the same thing happens during continue, "catch_errors" reports it. Yes, please. This silent stop bites me often, when longjmp-resume breakpoints fail to insert due to glibc pointer mangling... > 2) insert_bp_locations() generates error text that assumes > memory breakpoints. Confusing if remote_insert_breakpoints > is using Z0. Strictly speaking, Z0 breakpoints *are* supposed to have memory breakpoints semantics. :-) @item z0,@var{addr},@var{length} @itemx Z0,@var{addr},@var{length} @cindex @samp{z0} packet @cindex @samp{Z0} packet Insert (@samp{Z0}) or remove (@samp{z0}) a memory breakpoint at address @var{addr} of size @var{length}. > @@ -1223,10 +1223,10 @@ Note: automatically using hardware break > else > { > fprintf_unfiltered (tmp_error_stream, > - "Cannot insert breakpoint %d.\n", > + "Cannot insert breakpoint %d", > bpt->owner->number); > fprintf_filtered (tmp_error_stream, > - "Error accessing memory address "); > + " at memory address "); > fputs_filtered (paddress (bpt->address), tmp_error_stream); > fprintf_filtered (tmp_error_stream, ": %s.\n", > safe_strerror (val)); I'm not objecting to the change, but, honestly, I don't see where the assumption was, or where it is being removed? -- Pedro Alves