From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CAAF384A033 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:39:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2CAAF384A033 Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id m21so11112712eds.13 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 03:39:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-description:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=HaYSUEUDHnLpH+nVjgcDugSI9o6CDgJ60zbwXj8x6Cg=; b=ZS8LKiiJ4OtmF4MGHmF6Ddtg6kJMTIVSpXaPgaybTUc+OjyhF0WLX29bITiVJLXQUr +dKWdxUfGHSEmVgGcDQ7HX4TOFB2zIhfvi3b6aGIW3Ij/HdN0v5FNqq6BaWzi+G3vese oCWXF2U2c/se+Hv9jbeewxXR9qtxiiHIo1mUP+ORBdDkWsP4SKEgvY8V//KPQ5oSWEud /xzXVpjd3cZnx78jC8ug43GmZA+w87xZ9VDop5NAOtd7Pgi5WgVRK812ACL9wa2zude/ azRHe8f1ck3whKGMUWazPMUqnP1uW9+KM4hivFX4LhiXaBZz1qkbGwoMukILWD9cH9+H 5x9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aqnWhaTeD780IftEuGPkocOS+K4XLxwMM+JLRmNjW6b96TrG6 qdtBDTIDg7buR8frizifIUg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzgiqPcx/+3+gAe0aPwv6FlvPSwqd+SINeq0i2OHlqpBsQ88lR8Z2QsMT6heT9yHAEFqXb39Q== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d290:: with SMTP id w16mr23636321edq.178.1592217553614; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 03:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com ([2a03:1b20:3:f011::6d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ws10sm8529950ejb.24.2020.06.15.03.39.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 03:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 12:39:13 +0200 From: Shahab Vahedi To: "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" , Simon Marchi , Luis Machado , Shahab Vahedi Subject: Re: Why enforcing sw_breakpoint_from_kind() implementation in GDBserver targets Message-ID: <20200615103913.GA1816@gmail.com> References: <20200610174702.GA3486@gmail.com> <8f80e486-cca4-819b-7316-329832df985f@simark.ca> <20200611094048.GA1270@gmail.com> <07362b1e-3b9b-a858-ce7a-9a27daff511a@linaro.org> <20200611110053.GD1270@gmail.com> <20200611114418.GE1270@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: tankut_response Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:39:16 -0000 Tankut, Thank you for your clear response. I have only one remark: On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:04:08AM +0000, Aktemur, Tankut Baris wrote: > So, the base linux target delegates the op to the low target and enforces > an implementation. What about scenarios that "sw_breakpoint_from_kind" for the linux is defined by the target? There would be no execution of base-linux-target flavour of "sw_breakpoint_from_kind". Hence, not a mandatory dependency to the low target's "sw_breakpoint_from_kind". This scenario is actally not far fetched. That's what's happening in ARC port. Shahab