From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21706 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2012 17:17:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 21686 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2012 17:17:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:17:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8SHHHkW005504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:17:17 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8SHHFLU024935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:17:16 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] new memory-changed MI notification. References: <1348793347-12556-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1348793347-12556-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1348793347-12556-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Fri, 28 Sep 2012 08:49:06 +0800") Message-ID: <87obkqt6ck.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00686.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> There are usually two views in MI front-end, 'memory view' and 'code Yao> view', which displays the contents of 'data' and 'code'. Thanks. Yao> Memory can be modified in two ways through MI, 'var-assign' and Yao> 'data-write-memory[-btes]', so we add two flags for suppression Yao> 'var_assign' and 'data_write_memory'. Is there a particular reason to have two flags? It seems one would do. Usually I think it would be preferable to have a flag correspond to a notification and not a command; but this would not work so well if a command needed to suppress two different messages. (Though if that happens then maybe we should have a slightly different approach based on bitmasks.) Yao> +invalidate_bp_value_on_memory_change (struct inferior *inferior, CORE_ADDR addr, This line is too long now. Tom