From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25974 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2006 23:33:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 25966 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2006 23:33:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:33:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3QNXFPr005245; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:33:15 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3QNXFtY014051; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:33:15 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3QNXDtt017349; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:33:13 -0400 Message-ID: <44500338.4090808@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:33:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] problem fetching inferior memory due to breakpoint References: <20060426190517.GA930@adacore.com> <20060426191946.GA28844@nevyn.them.org> <20060426211817.GB930@adacore.com> <20060426213923.GA6253@nevyn.them.org> <20060426221801.GC930@adacore.com> <20060426222904.GA9745@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060426222904.GA9745@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:18:01PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > >>>Neither, where in win32-nat were you planning to modify? Presumably >>>you should change the i386 prologue analyzer. >> >>Aaahh, not win32-nat, but i386-tdep, in the prologue analyzer. >>If this is the prefered method, then I think you can expect a patch >>for tomorrow. > > > I think that's the right fix. > You know what might be a good optimization? Take "breakpoints_inserted" out of infcmd, stick it in breakpoint.c, and export an access method. It makes no sense for anybody except breakpoint.c to be keeping track of this anyway. Then, read_memory_no_bpt can simply check this, and if it's not set, default to target_read_memory.