From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25633 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2012 21:42:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 25624 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2012 21:42:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 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-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:41:48 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RusnM-0000Fa-65 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:41:48 -0500 Message-ID: <4F319A9B.70902@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:42:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc target-side break conditions 1/5 v2] Documentation bits References: <4F2309FF.9050708@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <4F2309FF.9050708@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da94043a77fefd0284eb7c5c888d881f9bbe1350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 On 1/27/12 12:33 PM, Luis Gustavo wrote: > This is the second iteration of the documentation bits. > > I've switched to using explicit markers for the breakpoint parameters > in the Z packet. Conditions will be passed via the "conditions" > marker, like the following: > > Z0,addr,kind,length,conditions=;;...; > I reviewed the prior discussion on protocol, and it wasn't clear to me why we couldn't use the same semicolon/colon syntax as is used for tracepoint packets, data packets, etc. It would look like this: Z0,addr,kind,length[;conditions:,,...] Also, in the patch: -@itemx Z0,@var{addr},@var{kind} +@itemx Z0,@var{addr},@var{kind},@r{[}conditions=@var{cond-expr0};@var{cond-expr1};@dots{};@var{cond-exprn}@r{]} @cindex @samp{z0} packet @cindex @samp{Z0} packet Insert (@samp{Z0}) or remove (@samp{z0}) a memory breakpoint at address @@ -34208,6 +34272,11 @@ A memory breakpoint is implemented by re the breakpoint in bytes that should be inserted. E.g., the @sc{arm} and @sc{mips} can insert either a 2 or 4 byte breakpoint. Some architectures have additional meanings for @var{kind}; +@var{cond-exprn} is an optional list of conditional expressions in bytecode +form that should be evaluated on the target's side. These are the +conditions that should be taken into consideration when deciding if +the breakpoint trigger should be reported back to @var{GDBN}. You and I know that the cond-expr syntax is something like "X", but we should actually say that. (And are we doing a bytecode count, or looking for an end-of-bytecodes char?) Stan