On 06/09/2015 07:10 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
Not exactly sure what to do here. Maybe we should stop considering
permanent and non-permanent breakpoints at the same address as
duplicates. That should result in GDB inserting the non-permanent
one, I think. Or we could get stop marking permanent breakpoints
as always inserted, and let normal breakpoints insert on top of
permanent breakpoints normally. See also:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-03/msg00174.html
That sounds a bit hacky.
Can you clarify? There are two suggestions above, in addition
to a url showing even more ideas. So I don't know what you're
referring to. :-)
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having
permanent breakpoints in the first place?
It looks like non-gdbserver targets are not ready to support these
tricky constructs/optimizations unfortunately. I'm afraid adding more
hacks here and there will cause the code to get even more confusing
without a generous amount of code comments. And i'm not even sure the
bp_finish check is the best solution either. After all, there is the
stepi case too.
We could probably fix the simulators, but then again there are
proprietary ones we cannot easily fix.