From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32750 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2005 22:07:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 32741 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2005 22:07:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:07:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8225948CBDB; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:07:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10107-01-9; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:07:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A6D48CBDA; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:07:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 4F28747E79; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:07:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:14:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: pgilliam@us.ibm.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What should be used instead of deprecated_read_memory_nobpt()? Message-ID: <20051129220752.GQ954@adacore.com> References: <200511291401.30945.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <200511292204.jATM4R1s022362@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511292204.jATM4R1s022362@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00626.txt.bz2 > Not sure, but read_memory_unsigned_integer() might not be safe, > because of the possibility of inserted breakpoints. Are there targets that do not remove breakpoints when the target stops? -- Joel