From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25682 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2009 09:30:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 25672 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2009 09:30:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com (HELO mail-gx0-f16.google.com) (209.85.217.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:30:40 +0000 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so119616gxk.0 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:30:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.57.5 with SMTP id f5mr453273tia.4.1233826236780; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:30:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <200902051225.41426.vladimir@codesourcery.com> References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06CB0F19@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF53@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <200902051225.41426.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint From: teawater To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Marc Khouzam , Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 17:25, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Thursday 05 February 2009 11:09:56 teawater wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> I read the source code in infcmd.c:finish_backward. >> This is because function "proceed" will be call twice in >> "finish_backward". Maybe MI output depend some >> observer_notify_target_xxx function. So it output twice. > > The *stopped notification is output as result of call to > > observer_notify_normal_stop > > which is done in infrun.c:normal_stop. I do believe that "silent" breakpoint > should generate *stopped, since otherwise frontend will assume the target is > running. Furthermore, I believe that silent breakpoints, in MI, should behave > identically to ordinary breakpoints -- as it stands, we print *stopped without > frame information. > > > I don't know why a silent breakpoint is used in implementation of reverse-finish, > nor do I understand why normal_stop is called in the middle of reverse-finish when > stopping on that temporary breakpoint. I think the first fix it to make reverse-finish > not to call normal_stop on that internal breakpoint (just like normal_stop is not > called on solib load breakpoint). The normal_stop is called twice in reverse-finish because finish_backward call "proceed" twice, "proceed" call normal_stop. Hui