From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6737 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2013 06:47:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 6726 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2013 06:47:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 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; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:47:08 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UDUba-00058Y-9t from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:47:06 -0800 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); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 22:47:06 -0800 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (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; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 22:47:03 -0800 Message-ID: <513837B9.2070101@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:47:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Khouzam CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Fix dprintf bugs References: <1361192891-29341-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1362057362-25324-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 Marc, thanks for playing with dprintf and giving a lot useful comments and suggestions. On 03/03/2013 10:21 AM, Marc Khouzam wrote: > I'm still hesitant about the -break-modified event in that case > though. I believe the event is triggered because the hit count > has changed. For a normal bp, it makes sense to have this event > in this case, since execution has stopped and only a single > event will be seen (not exactly true for non-stop, but still > makes sense, I think). However, for dprintf which is meant to > let the inferior continue to run, there could be quite many > hit events very quickly. Since we already have some feeback > that the dprintf has hit through the actual printf string, I'm > leaning towards not having that event for dprintf hits. Right, the "hit count" is not very meaningful to dprintf. I am fine not to update hit count for dprintf. > Furthermore, this event is not being sent when using dprintf-style > "agent" anyway. > > I also saw that conditions are now properly respected for dprintf-style > "gdb" and "call". That is great. Conditions are still not respected for > style "agent" but that is a separate issue I believe (PR 15180). > Right, PR 15180 is a separate problem. It is not dprintf specific, in fact. It is about target side commands execution respected for the target side conditions. > I did notice that although commands cannot be set for dprintf from > the CLI they are not blocked for MI: > > (gdb) interpreter-exec mi "-break-commands 1 hello" > ^done > (gdb) info b > Num Type Disp Enb Address What > 1 dprintf keep y 0x0000000000400570 in main() at loopfirst.cc:8 > hello > I'll handle this in the new version. -- Yao (齐尧)