From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5584 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2009 16:51:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 5543 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jul 2009 16:51:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 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; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:51:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 25579 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2009 16:51:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 23 Jul 2009 16:51:07 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" , tromey@redhat.com, Jan Kratochvil References: <200907231631.n6NGV2xR018887@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200907231631.n6NGV2xR018887@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907231751.01413.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: 2009-07/txt/msg00583.txt.bz2 On Thursday 23 July 2009 17:31:02, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > 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? Yes, I agree with you. (although in the only target supporting shared symbol space, DICOS, we don't run or start programs, we only attach to already running ones, and if we did [it would be possible to add such feature], the code is always already all relocated when we connect --- due to the global shared libraries feature of DICOS.) While Tom's right, there has been a stream of changes recently that constantly require that I adjust the multi-exec patch set, I'll handle this one easily when your patch is in; I don't think it will be much trouble. BTW, I haven't had much of a chance to touch the multi-exec patches since I posted them last. I was mostly waiting to see if people had comments on the general design, and on the user interface before proceeding further with it. If there's anything I should do to make that (testing, review, comments) easier on others, please let me know. -- Pedro Alves