From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12401 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2009 15:49:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 12385 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jul 2009 15:49:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:49:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6NFnRwS013514; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:49:27 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6NFnQTZ031353; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:49:26 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 n6NFnPpg021810; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:49:25 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A57053780F2; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:55:15 -0600 (MDT) To: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jkratoch@redhat.com (Jan Kratochvil) Subject: Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup References: <200907231224.n6NCOlAH001392@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200907231224.n6NCOlAH001392@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (Ulrich Weigand's message of "Thu\, 23 Jul 2009 14\:24\:47 +0200 \(CEST\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00581.txt.bz2 Ulrich> Yes, it's the same concept, but those functions in the PIE patch have Ulrich> some code that seems PIE specific (e.g. the entry point checks) that Ulrich> should be moved to the caller (presumably solib-svr4.c in the PIE case) Ulrich> to make the same infrastructure usable for both scenarios. Yeah, I agree. Ulrich> (In any case, moving this variable over to a struct inferior field Ulrich> can be trivially done after Pedro's patches are merged; I'm not sure Ulrich> we have to wait because of that ...) I'm inclined to agree as a general rule that we shouldn't put too much work into helping out uncommitted patches. In this case, though, we do already have struct inferior, and I wonder if the seemingly steady stream of needed fixes is making Pedro's to-do list impossible. I suppose if he doesn't speak up then I won't object any more :-) Ulrich> Unless I'm missing someting, the array in Ulrich> print_one_breakpoint_location is about enum bptype member; I've Ulrich> added a enum enable_state member here ... Yes, my mistake. I frequently get confused since both sets of constants start with `bp_'. Tom