From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25032 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2012 17:28:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 25023 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2012 17:28:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:27:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0OHRt2s027499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:27:59 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OHRso8000741; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:27:55 -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 q0OHRrsX013238; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:27:53 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [4/4] RFC: implement catch load and catch unload References: <4F1996E6.2030707@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F1996E6.2030707@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:31:34 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (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: 2012-01/txt/msg00832.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> Hmm. Should we ever print if the breakpoint does not cause a stop? IOW, Pedro> can't we make that unconditional if we're also clearing bs->stop? Pedro> Related, it looks like there's a bug here: [...] Yeah, I was contemplating something along these lines as well, though a slightly different take: I was wondering why bpstat_print will call print_bp_stop_message for a bpstat with stop=0. I think your patch is fine. If you want to check it in, I will rebase on top of it. Tom