From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13278 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 18:01:07 -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 13257 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 18:01:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.4.239) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 18:01:00 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21072B8F; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:00:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400AC9D4.1020104@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:01:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Centralize DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK handling from infrun References: <20040117222007.GA23563@nevyn.them.org> <20040118151909.GA17039@nevyn.them.org> <3791-Sun18Jan2004192337+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00475.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. I'm not that sure that the current code is right though :-( I recall comlaints about the current behavior - it should report all possible reasons for breaking and not just the first. Andrew