[PATCH] Notify observer of breakpoint auto-disabling

[Simon Marchi]

On 2021-08-13 12:27 p.m., Patrick Monnerat wrote:
> On 8/13/21 5:45 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-08-13 11:31 a.m., Patrick Monnerat via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>> As observer in currently notified of breakpoint stop before handling its
>>> auto-disabling after count is reached, the observer is never notified of
>>> the disabling.
>>>
>>> This patch moves the observer notification after the auto-disabling
>>> code.
>>>
>>> Fixes https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23336
>>>
>>> * gdb/breakpoint.c (bpstat_stop_status): move observer notification
>>>    after auto-disabling code.
>>> ---
>>>   gdb/breakpoint.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gdb/breakpoint.c b/gdb/breakpoint.c
>>> index 89af44ee4c6..feca224ccf4 100644
>>> --- a/gdb/breakpoint.c
>>> +++ b/gdb/breakpoint.c
>>> @@ -5491,7 +5491,6 @@ bpstat_stop_status (const address_space *aspace,
>>>         if (bs->stop)
>>>           {
>>>             ++(b->hit_count);
>>> -          gdb::observers::breakpoint_modified.notify (b);
>>>               /* We will stop here.  */
>>>             if (b->disposition == disp_disable)
>>> @@ -5501,6 +5500,7 @@ bpstat_stop_status (const address_space *aspace,
>>>               b->enable_state = bp_disabled;
>>>             removed_any = 1;
>>>           }
>>> +          gdb::observers::breakpoint_modified.notify (b);
>>>             if (b->silent)
>>>           bs->print = 0;
>>>             bs->commands = b->commands;
>>>
>> Is there some user-visible behavior change, that we could write a test for?
> 
> With gdb alone, I don't think so.
> 
> This impacts insight: the breakpoint GUI window does not refllect the disabling.
> 
> No possible workaround here, since the observer is never notified again after breakpoint has been disabled (unless some user action on the later).
> 
> As this is a GUI behavior, I don't think we can write a gdb test in this context.

Ok, thanks.  I think this information should be included in the commit
message, as it justifies the need for the change.

Simon