From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 17:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201005071816.54825.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100507163318.GA21953@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Friday 07 May 2010 17:33:18, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> This is one of the reasons of my patch. This was/is the problem of PR 9436
> that BPSTAT_WHAT_CHECK_SHLIBS overrides other breakpoint types.
>
> If these actions will no longer be executed immediately in infrun.c there will
> have to be more boolean perform_* flags to specify delayed execution of
> actions depending on the bp_* types. There is now only perform_shlib (for
> former BPSTAT_WHAT_CHECK_SHLIBS) but there will be also perform_jit (and for
> ifunc or next-over-throw more such flags). stepping_over_breakpoint setting
> may need more abstraction or also just another
> perform_stepping_over_breakpoint flag, not sure now.
(assume I mean both shlib events and jit events below)
Why does infrun have to know about checking solib events at
all? Checking for new loaded solibs looks like a detail of this
internal breakpoint. There's not much of inferior run control
related to it. It would seem to me that breakpoint.c could handle
it instead; for example, II have a feeling it should be possible to add
a new breakpoint_ops for shlib_events, similar to the "catch catch"
implementation. And with enough breakpoint_ops abstraction we could
even get rid of the shlib_event breakpoint type, and move the whole
shlib breakpoint definition to solib.c, like ada-lang.c handles
its catchpoints.
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-07 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-03 20:02 Jan Kratochvil
2010-05-04 14:10 ` Stan Shebs
2010-05-07 16:17 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-05-07 16:26 ` Pedro Alves
2010-05-07 17:02 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-05-07 17:17 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2010-05-17 21:46 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-12 17:02 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal [rediff] Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-15 15:08 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-15 21:54 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-16 19:13 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-18 10:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-18 11:42 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-18 14:09 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-18 14:35 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-24 14:44 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-24 14:48 ` [patch 3.1/3] bpstat_what removal - addon gdb_assert Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-24 15:03 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal Pedro Alves
2010-06-24 15:21 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-06-16 20:40 ` [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal [rediff] Tom Tromey
2010-06-23 14:42 ` Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201005071816.54825.pedro@codesourcery.com \
--to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=stan@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox