From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11838 invoked by alias); 17 May 2013 06:36:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 11826 invoked by uid 89); 17 May 2013 06:36:12 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 May 2013 06:36:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF242EAB1; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:36:10 -0400 (EDT) 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 bC7VfysuALnY; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECC82E14A; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0A7D2C25F1; Fri, 17 May 2013 10:36:03 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 06:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [WIP] TI msp430 CIO support Message-ID: <20130517063603.GF4017@adacore.com> References: <20130516212358.23f3bcdb@mesquite.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130516212358.23f3bcdb@mesquite.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2 > It may be that this is considered to be (barely) acceptable behavior > for dprintf. Even if this is acceptable for dprintf, it is completely > unacceptable for the CIO implementation. It makes no sense whatsoever > to turn a "next" into a "continue" when attempting to step over a > statement which performs I/O. Agreed. Having dprintf with limitations is probably better than no dprintf at all, but that is a very very serious limitation, IMO. > In order for this work to go into the GDB sources, the use of the > shared library machinery needs to be removed and replaced with some > other kind of breakpoint machinery which still provides correct > behavior. This same mechanism could be used to improve dprintf > behavior as well. Agreed again. I think this option has been delayed and delayed because it might be hairy to implement right (messing with handle_inferior_event). -- Joel