This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: don't set the pspace on ordinary breakpoints
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:30:31 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFC: don't set the pspace on ordinary breakpoints
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tuesday 08 November 2011 20:23:13, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <email@example.com> writes:
> Tom> I think I will change linespec to ignore program spaces in this state.
> The appended has two parts: the linespec.c change, relative to the big
> patch I posted, and the breakpoint.c change I think is needed too. Only
> the latter makes sense in the context of this thread.
> I *think* the should_be_inserted change is all that was really needed,
> after re-reading all the messages in this thread. Let me know what you
I think so, but it's hard to tell, given that the dependency
on the linespec.c changes.
> @@ -1327,6 +1329,12 @@ decode_indirect (struct linespec_state *self, char **argptr)
> CORE_ADDR pc;
> char *initial = *argptr;
> + if (current_program_space->executing_startup)
> + /* The error message doesn't really matter, because this case
> + should only hit during breakpoint reset. */
> + throw_error (NOT_FOUND_ERROR, _("cannot evaluate expressions while "
> + "program space is in startup"));
Why is is okay to look at current_program_space here, if you're
iterating over pspaces elsewhere?
Any chance we can have a standalone patch for just the
startup-disabled changes? We'd need something like my previous
suggestion in bkpt_re_set (even if we'd remain buggy WRT