From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60862 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2015 18:34:52 -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 60843 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jun 2015 18:34:52 -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 18:34:47 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Z2OMG-00036l-9Q from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:34:44 -0700 Received: from [172.30.7.56] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:34:43 -0700 Message-ID: <557731C2.9020108@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:34:00 -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/msg00147.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. :-) > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves > >> Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having >> permanent breakpoints in the first place? >> >> It looks like non-gdbserver targets are not ready to support these >> tricky constructs/optimizations unfortunately. I'm afraid adding more >> hacks here and there will cause the code to get even more confusing >> without a generous amount of code comments. And i'm not even sure the >> bp_finish check is the best solution either. After all, there is the >> stepi case too. >> >> We could probably fix the simulators, but then again there are >> proprietary ones we cannot easily fix. > > For the record, i'm fine with any of those workarounds if there is no reasonable fix for the fact that permanent breakpoints don't work as GDB expects on some targets. :-)