From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5570 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2009 16:57:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 5561 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2009 16:57:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qnxmail.qnx.com (HELO qnxmail.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:57:44 +0000 Received: from Nebula.ott.qnx.com (nebula.ott.qnx.com [10.42.3.30]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17521; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:57:36 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.42.100.129]) by Nebula.ott.qnx.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:57:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4A410982.30102@qnx.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:57:00 -0000 From: Aleksandar Ristovski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: Pedro Alves , Doug Evans Subject: Re: [patch] gdbserver: Add support for Z0/Z1 packets References: <200906222346.54263.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4A40F226.4080909@qnx.com> <200906231700.12402.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200906231700.12402.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00617.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 16:17:58, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: >> Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On Monday 22 June 2009 20:38:50, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: >>> >>>>> Z0 and Z1 breakpoints also take a 'len' argument, just >>>>> like Z2-Z4. You should also pass those down. >>>>> >>>>> But, Let's take a step back --- why not just rename the >>>>> insert_watchpoint|remove_watchpoint functions to insert_point,remove_point, >>>>> and relax the type checks in server.c: > >>>> But either way is fine with me - just let me know. >>> I'd prefer the approach I suggested, and worry about splitting >>> the breakpoints from watchpoints API if/when we actually need it. >>> >> Ok, then that version is committed. > > Well, we had never seen "that" version, and you bypassed > the "rename" suggestion... This version is the previous one with the changes you suggested (minus renaming). > > Would you care to explain why are watchpoints guarded on > require_running and breakpoints aren't? It's not super > obvious to me. Hmm... you mean we should probably guard all? You are probably right. In any case - advise on next step: -revert -rename -rename + guard Thanks, Aleksandar