From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5701 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2002 17:03:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5692 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2002 17:03:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frigg.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.16) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2002 17:03:08 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (diup-216-193.inter.net.il [213.8.216.193]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id BHW77060; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 19:58:00 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:03:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: ac131313@cygnus.com Message-Id: <7263-Sun07Apr2002195334+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> CC: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3CB070D6.7060902@cygnus.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 07 Apr 2002 12:16:22 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix watchpoints when stepping over a breakpoint Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20020402184333.A8464@nevyn.them.org> <6480-Fri05Apr2002103430+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20020405105416.A14105@nevyn.them.org> <9743-Fri05Apr2002194115+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20020405120851.A17113@nevyn.them.org> <4331-Sat06Apr2002104144+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20020406103621.A12359@nevyn.them.org> <2950-Sat06Apr2002201725+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20020406124912.A24394@nevyn.them.org> <3CB070D6.7060902@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 12:16:22 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > What would it take to replace DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK with a read_pc() > function that determines the stop address from the i386 hardware > registers and other state information? How would that help to solve this specific problem? The original problem happened on i386 as well, right? So at best, you'd be pushing the ``rat's nest'' from GDB application level to x86-specific parts of GDB, where there still will be need to decide what kind of breakpoint to reports to the application level. Or am I missing something? In general, it strikes me that breakpoint.c's design goes against what you propose: it defines an API where GDB queries the target about the status of all the known break/watchpoints, and then decides what happened based on what the target reports. You seem to suggest a different strategy: let the target tell GDB what happened. While certainly a viable idea, it sounds like a major redesign of a central GDB facility, no?