From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26517 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2015 18:22:08 -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 26505 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jun 2015 18:22:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:22:07 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-02x.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206] helo=SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Z2O9z-0007QF-NU from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:22:03 -0700 Received: from [172.30.7.56] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:22:02 -0700 Message-ID: <55772ECA.7040105@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:22:00 -0000 From: Luis Machado Reply-To: Luis Machado User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problems with finishing a dummy function call on simulators. References: <1433862056-18237-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <55772797.802@redhat.com> <55772C14.5090501@codesourcery.com> <55772CD8.9070106@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <55772CD8.9070106@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2 On 06/09/2015 03:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 06/09/2015 07:10 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > >>> Not exactly sure what to do here. Maybe we should stop considering >>> permanent and non-permanent breakpoints at the same address as >>> duplicates. That should result in GDB inserting the non-permanent >>> one, I think. Or we could get stop marking permanent breakpoints >>> as always inserted, and let normal breakpoints insert on top of >>> permanent breakpoints normally. See also: >>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-03/msg00174.html >> >> That sounds a bit hacky. > > Can you clarify? There are two suggestions above, in addition > to a url showing even more ideas. So I don't know what you're > referring to. :-) Both the above and the mail sound like workaround ideas. You mentioned even more special casing in the mail. It is the amount of special casing that i'm afraid of. Having more special cases feel like they defeat the purpose of having those permanent breakpoints if we have to IF our way through them. Am i missing something?