From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B3BD3858D35 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:25:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2B3BD3858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2A2F1EAB8; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] gdb: support for eBPF To: "Jose E. Marchesi" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200713122458.21339-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> <20200713122458.21339-2-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 19:25:25 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200713122458.21339-2-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 23:25:34 -0000 On 2020-07-13 8:24 a.m., Jose E. Marchesi via Gdb-patches wrote: > +/* Implement the breakpoint_kind_from_pc gdbarch method. */ > + > +static int > +bpf_breakpoint_kind_from_pc (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR *start_pc) > +{ > + /* We support just one kind of breakpoint. */ > + return 8; Please document (or use a macro / const int to make it clear) that the kind is also the instruction size. IMO it would make more sense to call the first kind 0, and the subsequent ones (if there is ever any) 1, 2, 3, etc, since you could have two breakpoint kinds that have the same size. Otherwise, this is OK. Simon