From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27714 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2006 14:51:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 27706 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2006 14:51:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:51:33 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-198-67.inter.net.il [80.230.198.67]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DFU61720 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:51:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060429142812.GA21067@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:28:12 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA/i386] pb reading insns if breakpoints still inserted Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060428171154.GP17613@adacore.com> <20060429142812.GA21067@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:28:12 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Now, you could make a reasonable argument that the default when reading > memory ought to be to ignore breakpoints. But that would be a much > harder change to test; we'd need to catch all the places which do need > to see breakpoints We don't need to catch all of them at once, if that's hard. We can catch them one by one and fix them as we do. > I can only think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there > are more. So, I would suggest making it separately. It's fine with me, but I still don't understand why it has to be in an architecture-specific file, not in some more general place. Am I missing something?