From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32470 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 17:27:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32462 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 17:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 17:27:55 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.141.57]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.8-GR) with ESMTP id CGF95929; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:27:13 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:27:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-Id: <3791-Sun18Jan2004192337+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040118151909.GA17039@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:19:10 -0500) Subject: Re: RFC: Centralize DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK handling from infrun Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040117222007.GA23563@nevyn.them.org> <20040118151909.GA17039@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00474.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:19:10 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > What happens if a location has both software and hardware > > breakpoints? Does the code still DTRT? > > Hmm, I am not sure. What _is_ the right thing? We should at least do no worse than the current code does--which is to act as if only the first breakpoint (in the order stored in the breakpoint data-base) were hit. That is, if breakpoints #n and #m both fire, the current GDB announces the one whose number is smaller (because it walks thru the breakpoints in their numerical order). It doesn't seem to matter whether the breakpoints are of the software or the hardware-assisted variety. It would be nice if we could announce all breakpoints that break at that point, but this might not be possible or very hard, I dunno.