From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119647 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2015 13:16:12 -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 119624 invoked by uid 89); 27 Nov 2015 13:16:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: usplmg21.ericsson.net Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (HELO usplmg21.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:16:08 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7F.71.32102.49758565; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 14:16:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [142.133.110.95] (147.117.188.8) by smtp-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:16:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Support software single step and conditional breakpoints on ARM in GDBServer. To: Yao Qi References: <1448287968-12907-1-git-send-email-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <868u5jx06b.fsf@gmail.com> CC: From: Antoine Tremblay Message-ID: <56585795.7020601@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <868u5jx06b.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00581.txt.bz2 On 11/27/2015 04:26 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > Antoine Tremblay writes: > >> Patches 1 and 2 fix general issues in the software single step control flow. > > I think patches #1, #2 and #4 can go in now, since they are quite > general. Hi, yes I was thinking about pushing 1-2 also. #4 however feels like it's part of a group with #3 and 5, together they cleanup the whole situation as these reinsert_addr implementations are directly related to the thread_event support that was removed. Otherwise we leave some inconsistent dead code there... So I could push [1-5] if that's ok with you ? > Do you plan to write the GDB counterpart of patch #4? I mean > remove thread event breakpoint from GDB for linux. > I do not has there is not need for it in GDB at this point. Should I ? Seems like we would remove some support for a refactoring in that case ? Regards, Antoine