From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11555 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2007 13:03:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 11542 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2007 13:03:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:03:46 +0000 Received: from dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.95] helo=caradoc.them.org) by nevyn.them.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJ8BD-00056a-2U; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:03:43 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJ8BC-0002rA-Hx; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:03:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thomas Neumann Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Organization of breakpoint locations Message-ID: <20070219130342.GA10857@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Neumann , gdb@sourceware.org References: <45D97E30.2060008@users.sourceforge.net> <20070219115744.GC6815@caradoc.them.org> <45D99E03.1050309@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45D99E03.1050309@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 01:54:27PM +0100, Thomas Neumann wrote: > > these? Your key would not be the address, but the address plus the > > breakpoint sequence number. That handles one and two. Then you can > > > good idea. I thought that a breakpoint could have more than one > bp_location associated with it, preventing such a scheme (but even then > a breakpoint would probably not have more than one location with the > same address). It can't yet have more than one bp_location, but the separation is there for a reason - I think the one to many mapping will arrive sometime this year. But I think we can add a sequence number to bp_location's just like breakpoints have. > > To be honest, I don't think this will be a small change either way. > > > I will give the libiberty splay a try, that should be easy. But if > resetting breakpoints is indeed as slow as you indicated, by patch is > probably pointless. What a shame. That would have been a very portable > and nice way to automatically trace execution flow. I'd like GDB to be able to manage huge breakpoint lists; I'm just warning you that a lot more work will have to be done first ;-) One nice thing is that if you kill or crash GDB today, it tends to leave breakpoints removed. If it didn't do this huge massive removal, it probably wouldn't - perhaps we should add a signal handler that takes care of that if we change it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery