From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24591 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2009 01:12:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 24583 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2009 01:12:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:11:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424AA2BABC2; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id XLCNQNA+80T4; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0013C2BAB3E; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 74019F5905; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:11:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Fix hw watchpoints: reordered / simultaneously hit [fixup #1] Message-ID: <20091103011145.GD4557@adacore.com> References: <20090817194612.GC10694@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20091002221254.GA7767@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20091002230124.GG10338@adacore.com> <20091003172302.GD26203@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20091007183858.GR5689@adacore.com> <20091012155916.GA20031@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091012155916.GA20031@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 Jan, Sorry for the delay on reviewing this... I'll confess that I am having a hard time following the patch, now, since we're now trying to achieve three different things: there is the fact that we want one of the target operations to take a ptid, and then the fact that we use that opportunity to change the interface, and (oh yeah!) a bug that we're trying to fix on x86/x86_64. Baby steps are really easier to follow, at least for me. > If we should do the upgrade my primary reason for this change is that > I find the single functionality being split into two target functions > (to_stopped_by_watchpoint and to_stopped_data_address) to be > confusing. Chose a new name to easily be able to keep the old > deprecated implementations working until its host maintainers can get > to update them as I cannot even compile some of the host files. I'm having second thoughts on this one, and I am no longer seeing much benefit in one interface vs the other (personal opinion, of course). In fact, the function semantics are not very confusing when you look at how the functions are used by the callers. It might be confusing for the implementation, although that would be very easy to fix by improved documentation in the target.h code. That being said, I'm still 50/50 on this. If other maintainers would like to merge the two functions, then I would be fine with that. But I see that such a transition would leave the code in a transitional state where we have both the old code and the new code co-existing. The problem is that it does not help maintaining the code while transitioning, and I fear that transitions of this kind can take a long time before we complete them. I do not normally hesitate making this sort of progressive change when I can see a clear benefit, but I just don't see a clear-cut benefit right now. Anything I might have missed? (I left patch #1 out for now, as it is now dependent on this patch) -- Joel