From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 99369 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2019 10:27:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 99358 invoked by uid 89); 22 Aug 2019 10:27:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*x:version, H*UA:version X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:27:34 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7MARVfG049084 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:27:31 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uhq3un7ve-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 06:27:22 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:27:20 +0100 Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.192) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:27:18 +0100 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7MAQtvV32047516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:26:56 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F8EA405D; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:27:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A46BA4051; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:27:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3748833570.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.214.101]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:27:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: by oc3748833570.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B677D8037D; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:27:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [PowerPC] Fix debug register issues in ppc-linux-nat To: pedromfc@linux.ibm.com (Pedro Franco de Carvalho) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:27:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <871rxefm5m.fsf@linux.ibm.com> from "Pedro Franco de Carvalho" at Aug 21, 2019 02:44:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 19082210-4275-0000-0000-0000035BD422 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19082210-4276-0000-0000-0000386DF9E0 Message-Id: <20190822102716.5B677D8037D@oc3748833570.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00522.txt.bz2 Pedro Franco de Carvalho wrote: > > The one question I still have is, given that we'll be deleting the > > installed breakpoints after a clone/fork anyway, wouldn't it be > > easier to just *delete* all breakpoints directly at the clone/fork > > callback and start out the GDB "installed" structures as empty? > > But that's just a minor detail ... whatever is easier to implement > > is fine with me. > > I think it's easier to do it in prepare_to_resume, since we have to do > it there anyway to handle hardware breakpoints that were removed by the > user. I'm also not sure that linux-nat is prepared to take exceptions > from these callbacks, in case a ptrace call there fails. OK, makes sense. > > Since this really seems to be required on PowerPC due to the peculiar > > ptrace interface, I'm fine with adding the common code clone hook. > > Ok. Is it acceptable if linux-low in gdbserver doesn't have the > equivalent hook? Adding one there would require changing struct > linux_target_ops and every arch that uses it. This will become > necessary in the future to enable hardware breakpoints in the ppc server > stub. Yes, I'd be fine with adding the hook to gdbserver as well then. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com