From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11298 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2009 23:53:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 11290 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2009 23:53:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:53:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 18011 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2009 23:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Jun 2009 23:53:01 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: New breakpoint_re_set call vs remote targets Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller References: <20090624190346.GA17908@caradoc.them.org> <200906250037.17148.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090624234634.GA24279@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090624234634.GA24279@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906250054.01612.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 On Thursday 25 June 2009 00:46:34, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Assuming the debugging session didn't blow up, wouldn't a > > breakpoint_re_set call after loading fix this? =A0The live > > target has gotten new code loaded, so triggering > > breakpoint re-evaluation and prologue skipping doesn't sound > > wrong to me. >=20 > Yeah, that would probably do it. =A0I think it's wacky that prologue > skipping relies on target memory, though. >=20 > > It also occurs to me that for always-inserted mode, we'd probably > > want to uninsert breakpoints before loading. >=20 > Uck. >=20 :-) The way I tend to see it, is that a "load" is similar to an execl, with the twist that a load may not replace the whole address space --- I was going to mention mark_breakpoints_out otherwise. --=20 Pedro Alves