From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9673 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2006 09:23:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 9660 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2006 09:23:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:23:13 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id IAU10781; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:23:07 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-200-134.inter.net.il [83.130.200.134]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CVB27522 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:23:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 10:39:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060303221003.GA21606@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:10:03 -0500) Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060303141123.GA8069@nevyn.them.org> <20060303175407.GA14450@nevyn.them.org> <20060303214359.GA20872@nevyn.them.org> <20060303221003.GA21606@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: 2006-03/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:10:03 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > For the record, it is not a target with peculiarities. It's an > architecture with a feature I don't see the difference. One man's feature is another's peculiarity. > There's a division in GDB between the target, which is a method of > communication et cetera ("how"), and the architecture, which describes > "what" is being debugged. Btw, is this division described anywhere? > The architecture says "the breakpoint at 0x8000 should be 2 bytes > long". The target sets the breakpoint. The target goes to remove the > breakpoint, and needs to know how long it was when it was set. If the issue at hand is just between the architecture and the target, then why you had to touch breakpoint.[ch] in your patch? AFAIK, breakpoint.c belongs to the higher-level GDB layer, above both the target and the architecture, isn't that so?