Re: [PATCH 1/4] Fix dprintf bugs

[Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>]

On 03/07/2013 10:05 PM, Marc Khouzam wrote:
> I was actually thinking of keeping the hit count being updated but
> simply not sending the MI event for it.  I'm under the impression
> that updating the hit count is not expensive, so having that information
> available can be useful.  What bothers me is the very many MI
> events being sent to the frontend.  If the hit count is not reported
> by an MI event for dprintf, its value can still be obtained by
> the frontend through -break-list for example.

FAOD, are you suggesting that we still update hit count, but don't have 
to notify breakpoint-modified observer?

>
> For the agent-style dprintf though, I'm guessing that the hit count
> is not being updated to avoid communication with GDB?  This
> scenario already had to be handled for normal breakpoints and
> I suggest using whatever scheme is already being used.

We can use async remote notification here, to notify GDB that the hit 
count or other attributes of breakpoint/tracepoint are modified.  I've 
had some local patches to report to GDB that the hit count and 
traceframe usage of tracepoint is updated.  After pending async remote 
notification are patches approved, I'll post them out.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)