From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15287 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2009 18:33:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 15274 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2009 18:33:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:37 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAB910557; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C45104AF; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MJtlN-00055N-KC; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:33:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller Subject: Re: New breakpoint_re_set call vs remote targets Message-ID: <20090625183333.GA19506@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , gdb@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller References: <20090624190346.GA17908@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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/msg00240.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:52:36AM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > I wonder if one useful step is to reassess post_create_inferior, and > maybe split it up or something. Adding it was a huge boon for consolidation. I don't really want to split it up again if we don't have to. Lots of actions used to be missed when using a particular target, such as remote or remote-mips or even core. Converting watchpoints from hardware to software (the point of the new call) is a sensible thing to do at the point of connection. It's just the prologue skipping that's bitten us - I like Pedro's idea of doing this at load. > From my perhaps ancient point of view, gdb is for debugging two kinds > of programs: hosted and freestanding (to borrow jargon from C - though > non-bare-metal and bare-metal may be more accurate. 1/2 :-)), and I > wonder if they're being inadvertently fused. I've been wondering about this too... I fear that if we introduce any switch between these two modes, we'll find it's not granular enough. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery