From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-43156-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32436 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2006 17:41:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 32423 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2006 17:41:36 -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; Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:41:35 +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 IAR10018; 	Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:41:31 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-75-252.inter.net.il [80.230.75.252]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id CUZ57866 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:41:30 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:56:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uu0af2zou.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20060303141123.GA8069@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:11:24 -0500)
Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <uk6bb51yk.fsf@gnu.org> <20060303141123.GA8069@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:11:24 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> That patch allows us to guess whether completely unknown code is ARM or
> Thumb.  If we are guessing based on target state and user settings,
> rather than from the symbol table as we do now, it's possible for
> the guess to change between when a breakpoint is inserted and when
> it is removed.  If that happens, we can try to remove a four byte
> breakpoint as if it were a two byte breakpoint, which will lead
> to memory corruption.

Can't this be done ion the target-dependent code?  Why do we need to
know, on the GDB application level, how many bytes did the breakpoint
instruction take?