Re: [PATCH v2] Add autoload-breakpoints [6/6] autoload-breakpoints doc

Hui Zhu
2012-04-28T07:15:51Z

On 04/20/12 07:40, Hui Zhu wrote:
> On 04/19/12 23:26, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:31:31 +0800
>>> From: Hui Zhu<hui_zhu@mentor.com>
>>> CC:<gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>>
>>>>> +@item @var{id}@samp{:}@samp{R}
>>>>> +This is the remove packet.
>>>>> +@var{id} is the number of the autoload-breakpoint that this command
>>>>> +wants to remove, encoded as a hex string.
>>>>> +@value{GDBN} will remove this breakpoint as it have been removed in
>>>>> +the target.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the last sentence. Please explain.
>>>>
>>>>> So when the target remove the breakpoint, it need remove
>>>>> +this breakpoint with itself. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> "removes", "needs to remove", and "by itself".
>>>>
>>>> By the way, what non-trivial information does this sentence convey?
>>>> It seems to say "when the target removes the breakpoint, it needs to
>>>> remove the breakpoint", which is trivial. What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> This part is not very clear. What about following part?
>>>
>>> When @value{GDBN} get this packet, it will delete this breakpoint
>>> as it have been removed in the target. So when the target send
>>> this packet, it needs to remove these breakpoints in local part by itself.
>>
>> Who is sending this packet, the target or GDB? I understand that the
>> target sends it, because you say "when GDB gets this packet".
>>
> Yes, the target send it.
>
>> But if the target sends this packet, then it should be quite clear
>> that it (the target) should delete the breakpoint.
>
> In prev version, GDB will send delete cmd to target when it got a autoload-breakpoint R to delete them. But I thought it will be hard to handle in both for target and GDB.
> So I change it: GDB will not send delete cmd after get the autoload-breakpoints R packet, the target will remove them by itself.
>
> In fact, I would
>> expect the packet to be a side effect of deletion on the target side.
>> Is the above correct?
>
> Yes.
>
> Thanks,
> Hui

Ping.

Thanks,
Hui