Re: [PATCH 1/2] new memory-changed MI notification.

Tom Tromey
2012-10-15T19:03:02Z

>>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> writes:

Tom> Usually I think it would be preferable to have a flag correspond to a
Tom> notification and not a command; but this would not work so well if a
Tom> command needed to suppress two different messages. (Though if that
Tom> happens then maybe we should have a slightly different approach based on
Tom> bitmasks.)

Yao> I agree with you that one flag should correspond to a notification. I
Yao> revised my patch a little bit to get rid of suppression flag
Yao> 'var_assign'.

Funny -- your previous message got me to agree that the bitmask approach
is overkill :)

Yao> 2012-10-09 Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
Yao> * breakpoint.c (invalidate_bp_value_on_memory_change): Add one
Yao> more parameter 'inferior'.
Yao> * corefile.c (write_memory_with_notification): Caller update.
Yao> * mi/mi-cmd-var.c: Include "mi-main.h".
Yao> (mi_cmd_var_assign): Set mi_suppress_notification.data_write_memory
Yao> to 1 and restore it later.
Yao> * mi/mi-cmds.c (mi_cmd mi_cmds): Update for "data-write-memory"
Yao> and "data-write-memory-bytes.
Yao> * mi/mi-interp.c: Include objfiles.h.
Yao> (mi_interpreter_init): Call observer_attach_memory_changed.
Yao> (mi_memory_changed): New.
Yao> * mi/mi-main.h (struct mi_suppress_notification) <memory>:
Yao> New field.

Either version of the patch is ok. Check in whichever one you prefer.

Tom