From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14838 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2006 09:09:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 14830 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2006 09:09:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:09:44 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-36-80.inter.net.il [80.230.36.80]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DRE14857 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:09:32 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Mark Kettenis CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message from Mark Kettenis on Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:01:52 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2006-03/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:01:52 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:17:11 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > This nasty, mechanical patch adds "len" arguments to > > target_remove_breakpoint and target_remove_hw_breakpoint. The goal is > > to allow BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC to include heuristics, which may possibly > > change between when a breakpoint is inserted and when it is removed; > > in order to stay in sync, we need to always remove breakpoints in the > > same way that we inserted them. > > > > There's not much more to say about this patch. It's big, obvious, and > > pretty ugly. Any comments on this? Does it look OK? > > Yuck! It really is ugly. For one thing, I think it is a bit > pointless, to add a the BREAKPOINT_FROM_PC() to targets where we know > the length of a breakpoint instruction is fixed. Was the reason for this discussed at some point? What I miss from Daniel's patch is some kind of explanation as to the reason(s) for it. I have my guesses, but I don't think I should do guesswork here. Perhaps I missed the explanation in the patch, but I did look at the comments and the gdbint.texinfo text, and didn't find anything that explains why we need this.