From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39836 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2016 12:32:13 -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 39827 invoked by uid 89); 17 Feb 2016 12:32:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:32:10 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9409451E; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:32:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1HCW8xq028365; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:32:08 -0500 Message-ID: <56C46847.7050908@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:32:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] gdb: Clean up remote.c:remote_resume References: <1455677091-13683-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1455677091-13683-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <56C45D60.5060303@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <56C45D60.5060303@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00506.txt.bz2 On 02/17/2016 11:45 AM, Luis Machado wrote: > Just nits. > > On 02/17/2016 12:44 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Just some refactoring / TLC. Mainly split the old c/s/C/S packet >> handling to a separate function. >> >> gdb/ChangeLog: >> 2016-02-09 Pedro Alves >> >> * remote.c (remote_resume_with_hc): New function, factored out >> from ... >> (remote_resume): ... this. Always try vCont first. >> (remote_vcont_resume): Rename to ... >> (remote_resume_with_vcont): ... this. Bail out if execution >> direction is reverse. >> --- >> gdb/remote.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/gdb/remote.c b/gdb/remote.c >> index fa97e1e..60e2dda 100644 >> --- a/gdb/remote.c >> +++ b/gdb/remote.c >> @@ -5460,6 +5460,58 @@ append_pending_thread_resumptions (char *p, char *endp, ptid_t ptid) >> return p; >> } >> >> +/* Set the target running, using the packets that use Hc >> + (c/s/C/S). */ >> + >> +static void >> +remote_resume_with_hc (struct target_ops *ops, >> + ptid_t ptid, int step, enum gdb_signal siggnal) >> +{ >> + struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state (); >> + struct thread_info *thread; >> + char *buf; >> + >> + rs->last_sent_signal = siggnal; >> + rs->last_sent_step = step; >> + >> + /* The c/s/C/S resume packets use Hc, so set the continue >> + thread. */ >> + if (ptid_equal (ptid, minus_one_ptid)) >> + set_continue_thread (any_thread_ptid); >> + else >> + set_continue_thread (ptid); >> + >> + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (thread) >> + resume_clear_thread_private_info (thread); >> + >> + buf = rs->buf; >> + if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE) >> + { >> + /* We don't pass signals to the target in reverse exec mode. */ >> + if (info_verbose && siggnal != GDB_SIGNAL_0) >> + warning (_(" - Can't pass signal %d to target in reverse: ignored."), >> + siggnal); >> + > > Even though it is existing code, this reads a bit odd. (Also, I have no idea what that unusual leading " - " is there.) > > Should we update it to "... in reverse execution: ..." maybe? Hmm, it'd still sound like a word is missing after execution, to me. I did 'grep reverse * | grep "\""' and found: reverse.c: error (_("Already in reverse mode. Use '%s' or 'set exec-dir forward'."), infcall.c: error (_("Cannot call functions in reverse mode.")); So maybe "... in reverse mode: ..." "... in reverse execution mode: ..." ? I'd rather leave it be in this patch though, since it's just a refactor with no UI change intended. >> static int >> -remote_vcont_resume (ptid_t ptid, int step, enum gdb_signal siggnal) >> +remote_resume_with_vcont (ptid_t ptid, int step, enum gdb_signal siggnal) >> { >> struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state (); >> char *p; >> char *endp; >> >> + /* No reverse support (yet) for vCont. */ >> + if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE) >> + return 0; >> + > > Same case as above. Also, do we need "(yet)"? How about: /* There are no vCont reverse-execution actions defined. */ if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE) return 0; ? Thanks, Pedro Alves