From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25403 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 16:17:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 25387 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2011 16:17:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:17:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAGGHEmD003313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:17:14 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAGGHDUD022732; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:17:14 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAGGHCFB003799; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:17:12 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal References: <20111028221459.GA28467@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111104074543.GA13839@host1.jankratochvil.net> <4EC3711B.5070206@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4EC3711B.5070206@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:15:23 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (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: 2011-11/txt/msg00433.txt.bz2 Yao> Thanks to Doug, I applied your patch on GDB CVS 2011-11-10. My comments Yao> below, Oops, sorry, I did not notice this before my rebase. I will fix up my branch now. Yao> I suggest that we add a comment, I steal from Ulrich's comment :) Yao> /* We fall back to GDBARCH if there is no architecture Yao> associated with SAL. */ Done. Yao> I got a compilation warning below, and looks like copy_arg should be Yao> initialized to NULL. Done. >> - /* Ranged breakpoints have only one start location and one end location. */ >> - gdb_assert (sals_end.nelts == 0 || (sals.nelts == 1 && sals_end.nelts == 1)); >> + if (sals_end.nelts != 0 && (sals.nelts != 1 || sals_end.nelts != 1)) >> + { >> + /* Ranged breakpoints have only one start location and one end >> + location. */ >> + b->enable_state = bp_disabled; >> + update_global_location_list (1); >> + printf_unfiltered (_("Could not reset ranged breakpoint %d: " >> + "multiple locations found\n"), >> + b->number); >> + return; >> + } >> Yao> I don't understand why assert is replaced by a condition check. Yao> Could you elaborate a little? There was a thread on gdb@ about this. Anyway, this is a bad assert. If breakpoint re-setting causes a ranged breakpoint to have multiple locations -- which is possible today if you use "file:line" breakpoints -- then gdb will crash. On the gdb thread we agreed to disable the ranged breakpoint in this situation. Yao> ${hex} has been defined in dejagnu/runtest.exp, and we can simply Yao> use it. Thanks, fixed. Tom