From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12977 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2011 17:03:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 12966 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2011 17:03:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:03:13 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook-2.local) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1QWAXg-0008C1-Ls for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:03:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4DF642D0.9050200@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:03:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Global breakpoints, introduction References: <4DF6337F.1040203@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940775844ea5e03c2e3bcd6f47fbd0e4179350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 On 6/13/11 9:39 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi, Stan - > > stanshebs wrote: > >> This pair of patches plus Linux kernel module adds global breakpoints >> to GDB. [...] > Interesting approach. Have you been planning to post it to LKML for > review/consideration? > Yes, I've just been waiting for all the debugger-haters there to retire and/or die first. :-) > You may want to rebase your code to the LKML uprobes implementation > already under review, so you don't have to duplicate the rather > intricate logic required to safely manage breakpoints in userspace by > the kernel. That's a good idea! I haven't updated myself on uprobes state in the past several months, but you're right, it would be good to have a single version of that. Stan