[RFA] Stop infrun from tracking breakpoint insertion status.
Vladimir Prus
vladimir@codesourcery.com
Thu Nov 29 18:46:00 GMT 2007
On Thursday 29 November 2007 01:24:37 Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>
> > The second problem was that breakpoint_inserted_here_p checks for
> > both ordinary breakpoints and single step breakpoints (which don't
> > go on bp_location_chain). In most cases, it does not matter, but
> > in one place the code tries to figure if we're stopped on a single
> > step breakpoint or an ordinary one, and surely, breakpoint_inserted_here_p
> > returning 1 for both cases was not good.
> >
> > The attached revision of the patch introduces a separate
> > regular_breakpoint_inserted_here_p function. No regressions on
> > either x86 or arm-linux. OK?
>
> I've tested this on powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 as well, no regressions.
>
> > * breakpoint.h (regular_breakpoint_inserted_here_p): New
> > declaration.
> > * breakpoint.c (regular_breakpoint_inserted_here_p): New.
> > (breakpoint_inserted_here_p): Use
> > regular_breakpoint_inserted_here_p.
> > * infrun.c (breakpoints_inserted): Remove.
> > (resume): Don't check for breakpoints_inserted before
> > remove_hw_watchpoints. Use breakpoint_inserted_here_p.
> > (proceed, init_wait_for_inferior): Don't set breakpoints_inserted.
> > (handle_inferior_event): Don't use breakpoints_inserted.
> > Use breakpoints_meant_to_be_inserted and
> > breakpoints_inserted_here_p.
> > (insert_step_resume_breakpoint_at_sal, keep_going): Use
> > breakpoints_meant_to_be_inserted. Don't set breakpoints_inserted.
> > (normal_stop): Don't check for breakpoints_inserted. Don't
> > set breakpoints_inserted.
> > (keep_going): Don't check for breakpoints_inserted.
> > (insert_step_resume_breakpoint_at_sal): Don't insert
> > breakpoints
>
> This is OK.
>
> > /* Remove breakpoints, SOLIB_ADD might adjust
> > breakpoint addresses via breakpoint_re_set. */
> > - breakpoints_were_inserted = breakpoints_inserted;
>
> "breakpoints_were_inserted" is now unused, could you please remove
> the variable definition as well?
I've made this adjustment and checked in. Thanks a lot for review, testing,
and the suggested improvements!
- Volodya
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list