This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] new memory-changed MI notification.


>>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> writes:

Tom> Usually I think it would be preferable to have a flag correspond to a
Tom> notification and not a command; but this would not work so well if a
Tom> command needed to suppress two different messages.  (Though if that
Tom> happens then maybe we should have a slightly different approach based on
Tom> bitmasks.)

Yao> I agree with you that one flag should correspond to a notification.  I
Yao> revised my patch a little bit to get rid of suppression flag
Yao> 'var_assign'.

Funny -- your previous message got me to agree that the bitmask approach
is overkill :)

Yao> 2012-10-09  Yao Qi  <yao@codesourcery.com>
Yao> 	* breakpoint.c (invalidate_bp_value_on_memory_change): Add one
Yao> 	more parameter 'inferior'.
Yao> 	* corefile.c (write_memory_with_notification): Caller update.
Yao> 	* mi/mi-cmd-var.c: Include "mi-main.h".
Yao> 	(mi_cmd_var_assign): Set mi_suppress_notification.data_write_memory
Yao> 	to 1 and restore it later.
Yao> 	* mi/mi-cmds.c (mi_cmd mi_cmds): Update for "data-write-memory"
Yao> 	and "data-write-memory-bytes.
Yao> 	* mi/mi-interp.c: Include objfiles.h.
Yao> 	(mi_interpreter_init): Call observer_attach_memory_changed.
Yao> 	(mi_memory_changed): New.
Yao> 	* mi/mi-main.h (struct mi_suppress_notification) <memory>:
Yao> 	New field.

Either version of the patch is ok.  Check in whichever one you prefer.

Tom


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]