On Wednesday 24 June 2009 19:50:44, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
Pedro Alves wrote:
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 16:17:58, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
Pedro Alves wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 20:38:50, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
Z0 and Z1 breakpoints also take a 'len' argument, just
like Z2-Z4. You should also pass those down.
But, Let's take a step back --- why not just rename the
insert_watchpoint|remove_watchpoint functions to insert_point,remove_point,
and relax the type checks in server.c:
But either way is fine with me - just let me know.
I'd prefer the approach I suggested, and worry about splitting
the breakpoints from watchpoints API if/when we actually need it.
Ok, then that version is committed.
Well, we had never seen "that" version
Ok, to rectify this I am attaching two versions: one if I
revert the changes I committed and the other is diff to what
is in now.
> ... and you bypassed the "rename" suggestion...
I did not do any renaming - I think it is not terribly
confusing since both in target.h comment and server.c 'Z'
case it is made very clear that it handles both breakpoints
and watchpoints (i.e. I don't find it any clearer if it was
called "insert_point"... it would still require reading the
comment in target.h)
Urgh, I was just about to press the send button when I saw
this message of yours. This version corrects a few troubles
with the previous commit (see ChangeLog) (one of them I still
see in your new patch) and I've tested it on x86_64-linux.
Aleksandar, please, please, do run the testsuite (and state
that you have) when posting patches. E.g., we could have caught
the vKill issue that Pierre fixed when we made only linux
report multi-process (the testsuite runs in "target remote"
mode, hence with multi-process off most of the way).