From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-48327-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25227 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2007 10:33:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 25218 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2007 10:33:21 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.239)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:33:17 +0100
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t13so1598417wxc         for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.47.19 with SMTP id u19mr12395457wxu.1176201195761;         Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.8.15 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4053daab0704100333j194f42b8xecc9a81a0fe479d6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:33:00 -0000
From: "Pedro Alves" <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Cygwin] Fix for: detaching crashes the inferior.
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-Reply-To: <uirc6m3hl.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4618D3F7.3040700@portugalmail.pt> 	 <4619748C.5080007@portugalmail.pt> <46199F9C.1060803@portugalmail.pt> 	 <uirc6m3hl.fsf@gnu.org>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 35c2d96539dba8c6
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2

On 4/9/07, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:06:20 +0100
> > From: Pedro Alves <pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt>
> >
> > Is there a case where we can get to to_detach
> > without remove_breakpoints being called?  I don't think there
> > is - we always get here through normal_stop, right?
>
> If you think this must be so, but are unsure, you can add a flag that
> is turned off in remove_breakpoints and turned on when a breakpoint is
> set.  Then, in to_detach, if the flag is on, you can scream bloody
> murder (and even abort(), if you think it's fatal).  Once users start
> using the modified version, you will soon know whether the assumption
> was wrong...
>

:) Thanks for the hint, I'll try to do that.

I think that gdb by design always removes the breakpoints from the
inferior when it stops, but it would be nice if someone would confirm
or unconfirm this.

Cheers,
Pedro Alves