From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9195 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 19:32:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9186 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 19:32:08 -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; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:31:44 +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 pA8JVdwh005406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:31:39 -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 pA8JVdEt015642; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:31:39 -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 pA8JVb7E025559; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:31:37 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich Weigand Subject: Re: RFC: don't set the pspace on ordinary breakpoints References: <201111022021.03286.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201111031601.51221.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201111031601.51221.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 3 Nov 2011 16:01:50 +0000") 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/msg00205.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> I'm looking at this one, and thinking that if we simply remove the Pedro> guard, we'll allow re-set to go through while we can't trust Pedro> symbols/sections in the program space, because they haven't been Pedro> relocated yet, but this is wrong (as opposed to just inneficient) Pedro> because GDB will actually read memory from the wrong addresses Pedro> (prologue skipping, breakpoint shadow, at least). Pedro> We can't just make bp_startup_disabled be per-location, Pedro> because a re-set could find new locations, defeating the guard. Yeah, that makes sense. I think I will change linespec to ignore program spaces in this state. Tom