From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10396 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2012 15:58:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 10387 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2012 15:58:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL 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, 16 Apr 2012 15:58:10 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SJoJc-0005QO-Qg from Hui_Zhu@mentor.com ; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:58:08 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:57:34 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:58:07 -0700 Message-ID: <4F8C418C.80509@mentor.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:42:00 -0000 From: Hui Zhu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH] breakpoint remove fail handle bug fix References: <4F8549BC.3050003@mentor.com> <20120411203549.GA4715@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F863B12.2040304@mentor.com> <20120416094950.GA10560@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120416094950.GA10560@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2 On 04/16/12 17:49, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:16:50 +0200, Hui Zhu wrote: >> But it didn't handle the issue when the target is remote. > > So a similar fix is needed also for gdbserver, isn't it? > > One needs to write a testcase for later check-in anyway, testing gdbserver > without the testcase/testsuite I find too painful. > > I still do not see a reason to really handled failed breakpoint removal (or > insert), gdbserver also can access /proc/PID/mem etc., cannot it? > > > Thanks, > Jan I just try to handle this issue for current issue or other issue about breakpoint in the future for example that a remote target cannot delete breakpoint when the inferior is running. But I am OK if you think it is not very important. I suggest we can doc clear about this part for the gdbserver developer. Thanks, Hui