From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28453 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2009 16:31:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 28434 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jul 2009 16:31:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate4.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.153) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:31:06 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6NGV35c176628 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:31:03 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n6NGV3Ya1712190 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:31:03 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n6NGV31l018927 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:31:03 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id n6NGV2xR018887; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:31:02 +0200 Message-Id: <200907231631.n6NGV2xR018887@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:31:02 +0200 Subject: Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup To: tromey@redhat.com, pedro@codesourcery.com Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:06:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jkratoch@redhat.com (Jan Kratochvil) In-Reply-To: from "Tom Tromey" at Jul 23, 2009 07:55:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00582.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: > Ulrich> (In any case, moving this variable over to a struct inferior field > Ulrich> can be trivially done after Pedro's patches are merged; I'm not sure > Ulrich> we have to wait because of that ...) > > I'm inclined to agree as a general rule that we shouldn't put too much > work into helping out uncommitted patches. In this case, though, we do > already have struct inferior, and I wonder if the seemingly steady > stream of needed fixes is making Pedro's to-do list impossible. > I suppose if he doesn't speak up then I won't object any more :-) Thinking about it a bit more, it seems that in the context of Pedro's patches, this flag really needs to be a symbol-space property, not an inferior property: it basically says that objfiles in this symbol space have not yet been relocated to their final addresses and therefore cannot be used to determine breakpoint addresses. In the situation where multiple inferiors potentially share a symbol space, this property applies to all of them. Also, with Pedro's patches breakpoints will be per-symbol-space, not per-inferior, so we'll have to disable/re-enable all breakpoints in a given symbol space (we cannot really disable all breakpoints of a given inferior, as this information is not actually known). So it seems that after all adding the flag to struct inferior now might be a step in the wrong direction; it should instead be added to struct symbol_space once Pedro's patches are in. Pedro, any comments? Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com