This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, tromey at redhat dot com, Jan Kratochvil <jkratoch at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:51:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup
- References: <200907231631.n6NGV2xR018887@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
On Thursday 23 July 2009 17:31:02, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Thinking about it a bit more, it seems that in the context of Pedro's
> patches, this flag really needs to be a symbol-space property, not an
> inferior property: it basically says that objfiles in this symbol
> space have not yet been relocated to their final addresses and therefore
> cannot be used to determine breakpoint addresses.
> In the situation where multiple inferiors potentially share a symbol
> space, this property applies to all of them. Also, with Pedro's
> patches breakpoints will be per-symbol-space, not per-inferior, so
> we'll have to disable/re-enable all breakpoints in a given symbol
> space (we cannot really disable all breakpoints of a given inferior,
> as this information is not actually known).
> So it seems that after all adding the flag to struct inferior now
> might be a step in the wrong direction; it should instead be added to
> struct symbol_space once Pedro's patches are in.
> Pedro, any comments?
Yes, I agree with you. (although in the only target supporting
shared symbol space, DICOS, we don't run or start programs, we only
attach to already running ones, and if we did [it would be possible to
add such feature], the code is always already all relocated when we
connect --- due to the global shared libraries feature of DICOS.)
While Tom's right, there has been a stream of changes recently that
constantly require that I adjust the multi-exec patch set, I'll handle
this one easily when your patch is in; I don't think it will
be much trouble.
BTW, I haven't had much of a chance to touch the multi-exec
patches since I posted them last. I was mostly waiting to see if
people had comments on the general design, and on the user
interface before proceeding further with it. If there's anything
I should do to make that (testing, review, comments) easier on
others, please let me know.