From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13020 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2004 20:42:41 -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 13008 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2004 20:42:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Aug 2004 20:42:41 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7BKgZe3027584 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:42:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7BKgTa26018; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:42:29 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536EC2B9D; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <411A84B0.7020106@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:42:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs References: <41191D71.60204@redhat.com> <7494-Wed11Aug2004070352+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411A4209.6020801@redhat.com> <411A5012.3000508@gnu.org> <9743-Wed11Aug2004205531+0300-eliz@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <9743-Wed11Aug2004205531+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00408.txt.bz2 >>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:57:54 -0400 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >>> >>> Right. In addition to the breakpoints, the MI needs to know about these >>> identical events (so that it can notify the gui of an shlib unload). > > > Not that I'm against this, but perhaps instead of implementing a core > GDB feature based on the observers (which, as far as I understand, > were invented for a different purpose), we should talk about two > separate changes: one that adds the observer, and another that fixes > the problem reported by Jeff. Um, observers were introduced for this purpose - make it possible for anything, core or peripheral, to monitor changes in the inferior/GDB. Otherwize we end up with things like this. observer_notify_solib_unloaded (...); breakpoint_notify_solib_unloaded (...); I'm currently investigating gdb.threads/static.exp failures and to fix that I think I'll need to add a further observer event. Andrew