bug in tracepoint protocol implementation

[Josef Ezra]

(Thanks  Michael, I'll try to hit standards this time)

The attached fixes an unpleasant bug in trace mechanism. Creating a
tracepoint declaration string for remote host, and when more then one
memrange item was declared in a tracepoint, the debugger would have leave
gaps in the string's buffer, causing unexpected results.

Josef Ezra

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com>
To: "Josef Ezra" <jezra@emc.com>
Cc: <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; <shagam@emc.com>; <sgordon@emc.com>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: bug in tracepoint protocol implementation


> Josef Ezra wrote:
> >
> > hi
> >
> > file: tracepoint.c
> > function: stringify_collection_list
> >
> > old:
> >    count += strlen (end);
> >    end += count ;
> >
> > new:
> >     count += strlen (end);
> >     end = temp_buf + count ;
> >
> > reasoning:
> > When saving more then one memrange parameter, the old code
> > leaves 'gaps' in the temp_buf string.
>
> Josef,
>
> Your change is correct (thank you).  However, would you
> please re-submit it after consulting the file "CONTRIBUTING"
> in your gdb source directory?  Or see:
> http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/#contribute
>
> Briefly, to streamline the process of accepting GDB
> contributions, we request the following format:
>
>   * brief description of the problem being addressed
>   * ChangeLog entry
>   * Diff of the changes, such as will be acceptable
>     as input to "patch" (eg. "cvs diff -c3p tracepoint.c")
>
> Hate to put you thru the exercise of resubmitting such a
> simple patch, but it will be good experience if you intend
> to make further GDB contributions (as I hope you will).
>
> Thanks,
> Michael Snyder
>
-------------- next part --------------


    *tracepoint.c : bug fixed: string was created in bogus
                              offsets.



*** tracepoint.c.~1.1~	Tue Oct  3 12:55:06 2000
--- tracepoint.c.~1.1~~	Tue Oct  3 12:56:34 2000
*************** stringify_collection_list (list, string)
*** 1448,1454 ****
  	       (long) (list->list[i].end - list->list[i].start));
  
        count += strlen (end);
!       end += count;
      }
  
    for (i = 0; i < list->next_aexpr_elt; i++)
--- 1448,1454 ----
  	       (long) (list->list[i].end - list->list[i].start));
  
        count += strlen (end);
!       end = temp_buf + count;
      }
  
    for (i = 0; i < list->next_aexpr_elt; i++)