From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13054 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2008 11:30:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 12999 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2008 11:30:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:30:09 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KAQ00H00FZWV700@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:32:05 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.14.29]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KAQ00K7YG1FOCP0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:32:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:08:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch] ia64: Fix breakpoints memory shadow In-reply-to: <20081120144936.GA25926@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <20081028172816.GA1284@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20081029210242.GA3635@adacore.com> <20081030144841.GA26606@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20081101185410.GB15606@adacore.com> <20081111131726.GA3272@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20081113053100.GL5112@adacore.com> <20081120144936.GA25926@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:49:36 +0100 > From: Jan Kratochvil > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > gdb/doc/ > 2008-11-20 Jan Kratochvil > > * gdbint.texinfo (Target Conditionals): Extend the > gdbarch_breakpoint_from_pc description. This part is approved, thanks. However, I'm slightly worried by these parts in your code: > + instr_breakpoint = slotN_contents (bundle_mem, slotnum); > + if (instr_breakpoint != IA64_BREAKPOINT) > + warning (_("Breakpoint removal cannot find the placed breakpoint at %s"), > + paddr_nz (bp_tgt->placed_address)); Can this happen as part of normal GDB behavior? If not, we should make this internal_error, I think. If indeed this is a warning, we should tell users what to do with such a warning, either as part of the message or at least in the manual. > + if (slotnum > 2) > + error (_("Can't insert breakpoint for slot numbers greater than 2.")); Similarly here: assuming slot numbers are not something exposed to the user, I'd be bewildered if presented with such a message. If this is an internal GDB error (a.k.a. bug), let's treat it like one. (Yes, I do realize that there's already a similar call to `error' elsewhere in the existing GDB code. My comments apply to that place as well.)