From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12033 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2011 01:12:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 12024 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2011 01:12:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 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; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:12:00 +0000 Received: from nat-jpt.mentorg.com ([192.94.33.2] helo=PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RQqWF-0007ao-D0 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:11:59 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([172.16.63.104]) by PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:11:57 +0900 Message-ID: <4EC45F56.5060000@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:12:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] allow pending tracepoint References: <4EC20E2E.6010402@codesourcery.com> <4EC2181F.2010306@codesourcery.com> <201111161903.44296.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201111161903.44296.pedro@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: 2011-11/txt/msg00458.txt.bz2 On 11/17/2011 03:03 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> > Note that we don't check/validate SALs for pending fast trace point, >> > because inferior may not be ready to access at that moment. > Hmm, confusing comment. You don't validate the SALs for pending > tracepoints because a pending tracepoint has only one dummy sal, > and it makes no sense to validate a dummy sal. > Yes, the sal->pc is 0x0, and we'll get this error from GDB: "Cannot access memory at address 0x0" You are right, and my description is confusing/misleading. >> > - struct breakpoint *b; >> > + struct breakpoint *b = NULL; > Unnecessary initialization. Removed. -- Yao (齐尧)