From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20839 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2014 08:42:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 20828 invoked by uid 89); 6 Oct 2014 08:42:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 08:42:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s968gWpQ012760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:42:32 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s968gUAn002197; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:42:31 -0400 Message-ID: <543255F6.9010500@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 08:42:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info References: <1411691982-10744-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1411691982-10744-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <87fvfbx65x.fsf@codesourcery.com> <542D93F8.7050005@redhat.com> <87oatqui22.fsf@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <87oatqui22.fsf@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 On 10/06/2014 02:02 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > >> I.e., if we have step-over info, then something, somewhere wants a >> breakpoint lifted out of the target. No matter whether we're >> stepping or continuing the target at this point, we need to receive >> all signals so that if the signal handler calls the code that >> would trigger the breakpoint/watchpoint, we don't miss it. >> >> Removing this check now avoids having tweak it when >> singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p check global ends up >> eliminated by a later patch in the series. >> >> Does that make sense? > > Yes, it makes sense to me. > > I've reviewed the rest of patches, and they are good to me. I've tested > the whole patch set with the changes I suggested in patch 3/9 on > arm-linux-gnueabi target. No regression. Excellent. Thank you very much, Yao. Thanks, Pedro Alves