This is the mail archive of the 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] gdbserver: Add support for Z0/Z1 packets

Pedro Alves wrote:
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).

And just another small note:

+	    require_running (own_buf);
+	    if (insert && the_target->insert_point != NULL)
+	      res = (*the_target->insert_point) (type, addr, len);
+	    else if (!insert && the_target->remove_point != NULL)
+	      res = (*the_target->remove_point) (type, addr, len);
+	    break;

They should either both be present or none. In the gdb document, there is implementation note that reads:

Implementation notes: A remote target shall return an empty string for an un-recognized breakpoint or watchpoint packet type. A remote target shall support either both or neither of a given `Ztype...' and `ztype...' packet pair. To
avoid potential problems with duplicate packets, the operations should be imple-mented in an idempotent way.

So, I would make it something like I proposed (if either is NULL, it's unsupported - also makes a clear statement to new target implementors).

Thanks -- Aleksandar Ristovski QNX Software Systems

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