[RFC] Autoload-breakpoints new version [1/9] autoload breakpoints without sync function
Wed Oct 17 11:51:00 GMT 2012
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Stan Shebs <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/12 12:07 AM, Hui Zhu wrote:
>> I thought make the autoload-breakpoints and sync function together make it
>> too hard to review. So I move the sync function to be a series of separate
>> patches after report-async.
>> The change of this patches with the prev version is I change the formart
>> of packet "QBDP"(add ":") to make it follow the rule of notification format.
>> 2012-08-07 Hui Zhu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> * breakpoint.c (hex2bin, unpack_varlen_hex): New extern.
>> (autoload_breakpoints_query, autoload_breakpoints_merge,
>> autoload_breakpoints_gdb, autoload_breakpoints_stub,
>> autoload_breakpoints_enums, this_ubpcmd): New variable.
>> (breakpoint_get_commands): New function.
>> (print_one_breakpoint): Add out for b->autoload_id.
>> (init_raw_breakpoint_without_location): Add init for autoload_id
>> and autoload_inserted.
>> (autoload_breakpoints_get_id, uploaded_bp_commands_clean,
>> uploaded_bp_commands_add, handle_autoload_breakpoint_cmd,
>> merge_uploaded_autoload_breakpoints, autoload_breakpoints_reset,
>> autoload_breakpoints_number): New function.
> Looking at this code, I think we need to share it with the tracepoint
> upload, since the data structures are nearly identical,
> and the algorithms are also quite similar.
It will just share the packet parser (these cases).
But most of code is around how to handle this packet. In this part,
most of target defined code cannot shared with tracepoint because it
have a lot of code around control the target defined breakpoints.
So do you mind I keep they separate?
> +When this mode is \"merge\", the autoload-breakpoints\n\
> +of GDB and stub will merge together when GDB connect to stub.\n\
> +When this mode is \"gdb\", the autoload-breakpoints of stub will be
> +when GDB connect to stub.\n\
> +When this mode is \"stub\", the autoload-breakpoints of GDB will be
> +when GDB connect to stub."),
> This should say "target" since we don't know if the target is a stub, or a
> sprite, or gdbserver, etc.
OK. I will fix it.
More information about the Gdb-patches