From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6800 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2011 08:13:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 6792 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2011 08:13:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:13:32 +0000 Received: from nat-jpt.mentorg.com ([192.94.33.2] helo=PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RKmzr-0001p8-Ht from Yao_Qi@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 01:13:31 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([172.16.63.104]) by PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:13:30 +0900 Message-ID: <4EAE58B8.3010302@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:41:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110923 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch, gdbserver] Uninsert bpkt when regular and fast tracepoint are set at the same address References: <4EA8C851.2080703@codesourcery.com> <201110271659.09154.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4EABEE51.5040801@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4EABEE51.5040801@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00817.txt.bz2 On 10/29/2011 08:15 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Another thing I want you to help me to understand is what is wrong with > my patch? In my patch, the interpretation of shadow is different from > yours. In my patch, when raw breakpoint and fast tracepoint jump is set > at the same address, shadow of breakpoint is a copy of jump insn. It > makes easier in uninsert breakpoint, because check_mem_write is not > needed, and we can simply write memory. The only problem I can think of > is about removing fast tracepoint first, and leaving breakpoint still > there. Except this problem, is there any more problem? I find my patch caused some regression on my local tracepoint test cases, and I figured out why my patch is wrong. Please ignore this question. -- Yao (齐尧)