From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23174 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2014 17:24:48 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 23165 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2014 17:24:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:24:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5JHOgFh015433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:24:42 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-103.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.103]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5JHOe8a024671 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:24:41 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: David Taylor Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb remote protocol breakpoints (Z0 command) References: <20417.1403189074@usendtaylorx2l> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20417.1403189074@usendtaylorx2l> (David Taylor's message of "Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:44:34 -0400") Message-ID: <87r42kdd7r.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 David> There are many things you might want to do at a breakpoint that lack David> bytecode operators. Just for starters, [...] David> . there is no bytecode operator for calling arbitrary functions I think this one is a pain to push into the remote, probably why it wasn't done. David> . there is no 'continue' option (as in: ``after performing the David> requested commands, continue the current thread'') This seems like a different kind of thing altogether. Though I'm not sure I understand the use case. As a breakpoint condition it could be done by always returning zero. David> Has anyone else thought about these issuses and possibly sketched out David> extensions to allow such capabilities? We're looking at extending the "compile" command to add "compile cond", where the compiled condition is injected into the inferior. This is still a little ways down the road for us. This isn't entirely straightforward, though, and has other tradeoffs. Also extending agent expressions would be reasonable. I suppose some feature negotiation here would be needed. Tom