From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10710 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2007 14:48:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 10699 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2007 14:48:15 -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 14:48:10 +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 1HJ9o7-0005Dn-KT; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:47:59 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJ9o7-0008WN-15; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:47:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Veksler Cc: Thomas Neumann , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Organization of breakpoint locations Message-ID: <20070219144758.GA32582@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Veksler , Thomas Neumann , gdb@sourceware.org References: <45D97E30.2060008@users.sourceforge.net> <20070219115744.GC6815@caradoc.them.org> <45D99E03.1050309@users.sourceforge.net> <20070219130342.GA10857@caradoc.them.org> <45D9B6EA.6050309@tx.technion.ac.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45D9B6EA.6050309@tx.technion.ac.il> 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/msg00202.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 04:40:42PM +0200, Michael Veksler wrote: > I always thought (speculated) that breakpoint removal was to simplify > things like > > (gdb) x /i $pc > > Where you don't want to see the INT instruction, but the original value. Some parts of GDB won't work if we leave breakpoints in. But, it's not hard to fix - we have the right helper routines for it nowadays. Joel made some changes like this in the last year. > GDB crash does sound like another reason. > Being curios, I'd like to ask what was the original reason for > this behavior? Does anyone know? I never saw it documented anywhere. I don't know either; I'm just guessing. It may have just been easiest at the time and no one came back to think about it later. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery