From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1208 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 19:04:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 1029 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2011 19:04:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:03:48 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RQklv-0006MI-Kj from pedro_alves@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:03:47 -0800 Received: from scottsdale.localnet ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:03:45 +0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] allow pending tracepoint Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-12-generic; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Yao Qi References: <4EC20E2E.6010402@codesourcery.com> <4EC2181F.2010306@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4EC2181F.2010306@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201111161903.44296.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: 2011-11/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 15 November 2011 07:43:27, Yao Qi wrote: > Existing breakpoint infrastructure in gdb makes easier to do pending > tracepoint. We just create right type (tracepoint) for pending state. > Note that we don't check/validate SALs for pending fast trace point, > because inferior may not be ready to access at that moment. Hmm, confusing comment. You don't validate the SALs for pending tracepoints because a pending tracepoint has only one dummy sal, and it makes no sense to validate a dummy sal. > - struct breakpoint *b; > + struct breakpoint *b = NULL; Unnecessary initialization. Okay. -- Pedro Alves