From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32500 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2012 07:15:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 32479 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2012 07:15:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 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; Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:15:37 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SO1sW-0006CA-PD from Hui_Zhu@mentor.com ; Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:15:36 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:15:36 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:15:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4F9B9915.60101@mentor.com> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:25:00 -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: Eli Zaretskii CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add autoload-breakpoints [6/6] autoload-breakpoints doc References: <4F8562EE.6080306@mentor.com> <4F8E9D3A.5000809@mentor.com> <834nsgkh28.fsf@gnu.org> <4F9005A3.2010008@mentor.com> <83wr5bivyz.fsf@gnu.org> <4F90A281.4040205@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <4F90A281.4040205@mentor.com> 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/msg01050.txt.bz2 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 >>> CC: >>> >>>>> +@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