From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2359 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 20:30:22 -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 2348 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 20:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 20:30:21 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76BD52E96; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:35:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E53EA7A.8070001@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:30:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Re-initializing a list after the control returns to gdb... References: <20030219020101.GI2105@gnat.com> <3E53B97A.4090809@redhat.com> <20030219175056.GP2105@gnat.com> <3E53C88E.90807@redhat.com> <20030219192422.GS2105@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00437.txt.bz2 >> The code relies on global state so I think `target changed' is better - >> that way you know that your state is up-to-date. From memory, right now >> we've actually memory_changed and registers_changed (I think they should >> be merged). There is also a target run hook that insight uses. > > > Unfortunately `target changed' does not trigger at least every time > I need it to. I looked at the code, and it should basically trigger > everytime we change some data in memory. Yes. > A quick attempt with "set debug event 1" shows that the only events > I see in a simple "break; run" sequence are breakpoint events... > > >> That's the problem (you said sick), we've three: >> - gdb-events >> - chained hooks >> - simple hooks >> gdb-events started on the problem but lost direction. > > > I like the events mechanism, it's a paradigm that's used very widely. > But the gdb-event mechanism does not seem to allow several clients > subscribing for these events at the same time. This mechanism is > then very close to the simple hooks. That's why I used the word `observer'. When gdb-events was written (ok when I hacked it up) I wasn't sure if it should be all (observer) or one (as it is now). In hindsite, it needs to be converted to an observer model (or a new observer model introduced and the current gdb-hooks changed to one of the many observers). > I am therefore thinking of implementing a new chained hook in place > of the direct call to ada_read_tasks_list. Would that be an acceptable > solution? Have a look at insight's gdb/gdbtk/generic/gdbtk-hooks.c for what it uses. Andrew