From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3399 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2012 15:47:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 3387 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2012 15:47:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:47:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q18FlO3W018689 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:47:25 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q18FlNeb016038; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:47:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4F32990B.7060203@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:47:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Gustavo, Luis" CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix breakpoint updates for multi-inferior References: <4F20610B.5010403@mentor.com> <4F3291D9.80705@redhat.com> <4F329468.3020307@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <4F329468.3020307@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On 02/08/2012 03:27 PM, Luis Gustavo wrote: >> Your change makes gdb loop over all locations once for each program space. >> How about we sort by program space in addition to address in the first place, so >> that we'd have: >> >> #1 PSPACE1 ADDR1 >> #2 PSPACE1 ADDR1 >> #3 PSPACE2 ADDR1 >> >> and things would then still work correctly with just one pass? >> > > breakpoint.c:bp_location_compare (...)'s comment about keeping a stable user-visible ordering of breakpoints made me consider that solution inappropriate. > > Maybe i'm missing something? We're already sorting by address first, so I'm not really sure what is it that's user-visible that we're trying to preserve. Jan? Even if that is still necessary, would it be ok to sort by address, then pspace, and only after by bkpt number? -- Pedro Alves