From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32319 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 18:10:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 32309 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 18:10:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_BJ 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, 08 Nov 2011 18:10:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA8I9jQH006526 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:09:45 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA8I9iRx015985; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:09:45 -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 pA8I9gDc011561; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:09:43 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com (Pedro Alves), gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker) Subject: Re: RFC: remove gdbarch from struct breakpoint References: <201111081718.pA8HInH6022772@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201111081718.pA8HInH6022772@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (Ulrich Weigand's message of "Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:18:49 +0100 (CET)") 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/msg00204.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Ulrich" == Ulrich Weigand writes: Ulrich> For example, today we could add a breakpoint like: Ulrich> break spu.c:123 if var.offset == 123 Ulrich> while currently in PowerPC architecture. The way this was intended Ulrich> to work is to set a breakpoint location on spu.c:123 (with a location Ulrich> architecture of "spu"), while evaluating the condition using Ulrich> PowerPC architecture settings. Ok. Ulrich> Well, in the cases I mentioned above (generated code, stack trampolines) Ulrich> -- which are rare, but possible, breakpoint targets, especially for Ulrich> single-step breakpoints -- there is no objfile either. Yeah, I understand now. Looking back, I am not certain there is an actual need for this patch. I am going to see what happens if I just drop it. If I do drop it, I will still pull in the tracepoint changes, since I think those are probably good. Tom