From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32103 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 22:34:32 -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 32091 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 22:34:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 22:34:29 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03216; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CB369B0.E80BB028@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:34:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Martin M. Hunt" CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, eliz@is.elta.co.il Subject: Re: [RFA] breakpoints.c clear_command fix References: <200203270001.g2R01sJ08019@localhost.localdomain> <3CAE5578.10B51383@redhat.com> <200204081924.g38JO0v24874@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 "Martin M. Hunt" wrote: > > On Friday 05 April 2002 05:55 pm, Michael Snyder wrote: > > "Martin M. Hunt" wrote: > > > The clear command improperly detects overlays and fails > > > to clear breakpoints if overlays are not disabled. > > > > > > Tested with linux-x-mips (overlays enabled) and linux x86 native. > > > > Martin, you really made me think with this one. Sorry it took so long. > > I had to go back eleven years in the code base to understand what this > > code was trying to do -- which made me realize that it's painfully > > obsolete. It has two inner loops with identical control conditions > > (except that they've gotten out of sync), just because they didn't > > have ALL_BREAKPOINTS_SAFE when this code was written. > > I was wondering why the two seperate loops. I didn't understand the comments > so I made the minimum changes that seemed logical. > > > So I rewrote the whole damn function. ;-) > > Great! > > It looks fine and it passes all my test cases. Thanks. Committed.