This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/7.8] user breakpoint not inserted if software-single-step at same location
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:40:54 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA/7.8] user breakpoint not inserted if software-single-step at same location
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1401394280-14999-1-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <5387BFF0 dot 6010208 at redhat dot com> <20140530122253 dot GC4289 at adacore dot com> <53887ED5 dot 5050603 at redhat dot com> <20140530132659 dot GD4289 at adacore dot com> <20140530193549 dot GF4289 at adacore dot com> <538D05CC dot 8050608 at redhat dot com> <538D85A9 dot 5010004 at redhat dot com> <538DC98E dot 9050004 at redhat dot com> <20140603133539 dot GM4289 at adacore dot com>
On 06/03/2014 02:35 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
>>> Bah, I woke up realizing that the version I posted forgets to
>>> clone the shadow buffer! Let me fix that and repost...
>
> You are producing patches so fast, I am wondering if I will be able
> to keep up! :-)
:-)
>> @@ -15138,12 +15196,30 @@ deprecated_insert_raw_breakpoint (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>> struct address_space *aspace, CORE_ADDR pc)
>> {
>> struct bp_target_info *bp_tgt;
>> + struct bp_location *bl;
>>
>> bp_tgt = XCNEW (struct bp_target_info);
>>
>> bp_tgt->placed_address_space = aspace;
>> bp_tgt->placed_address = pc;
>>
>> + /* If an unconditional non-raw breakpoint is already inserted at
>> + that location, there's no need to insert another. However, with
>> + target-side evaluation of breakpoint conditions, if the
>> + breakpoint that is currently inserted on the target is
>> + conditional, we need to make it unconditional. Note that a
>> + breakpoint with target-side commands is not reported even if
>> + unconditional, so we need to remove the commands from the target
>> + as well. */
>> + bl = find_non_raw_software_breakpoint_inserted_here (aspace, pc);
>> + if (bl != NULL
>> + && VEC_empty (agent_expr_p, bl->target_info.conditions)
>> + && VEC_empty (agent_expr_p, bl->target_info.tcommands))
>> + {
>> + bp_target_info_copy_insertion_state (bp_tgt, &bl->target_info);
>> + return bp_tgt;
>> + }
>> +
>
> ISTM that you are assuming that there would only be one other breakpoint
> inserted at this location. What if there were more?
Yep, it's a valid assumption. Only one of those can be the one that
is actually inserted in the target. All others breakpoints are considered
duplicates, with bl->duplicate == 1 and bl->inserted == 0, and never reach
the target. The duplicate location logic in the tail of update_global_location_list
takes care of it:
/* This and the above ensure the invariant that the first location
is not duplicated, and is the inserted one.
All following are marked as duplicated, and are not inserted. */
if (loc->inserted)
swap_insertion (loc, *loc_first_p);
loc->duplicate = 1;
The one that is inserted will hold a merge of all the agent
expressions (in target_info.conditions and target_info.tcommands) of
the target-side conditions and commands of all breakpoints at that
address. Those are computed just before that single breakpoint
is inserted (build_target_condition_list, build_target_command_list).
--
Pedro Alves