From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3877 invoked by alias); 7 May 2010 17:17:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 3863 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2010 17:17:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 May 2010 17:16:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 14690 invoked from network); 7 May 2010 17:16:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 May 2010 17:16:57 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 17:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-20-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Stan Shebs References: <20100503200217.GD30386@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201005071725.54236.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100507163318.GA21953@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20100507163318.GA21953@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201005071816.54825.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: 2010-05/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 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