Re: [PATCH] Support for HWbreak/watchpoint accross fork/vfork on arm-native

[Omair Javaid <omair.javaid@linaro.org>]

On 13/02/2014 23:39, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> +static int
>> +update_registers_callback (struct lwp_info *lwp, void *arg)
>> +{
>> +  struct update_registers_data *data = (struct update_registers_data *) arg;
>> +
>> +  /* Force iterate_over_lwps to return matched lwp_info*.  */
>> +  if (arg == NULL)
>> +    return 1;
>> +
> You don't seem to have addressed my comment here?  It was:
>
> "I don't understand this.  It seems nothing passes a NULL arg."

I was using iterate_over_lwps to return matching lwp_info struct and 
that happens only when if update_registers_callback returns 1.
Its not being used anywhere now and can be removed.

>
>
>>     if (watchpoint)
>>       {
>>         count = arm_linux_get_hw_watchpoint_count ();
>> -      bpts = t->wpts;
>> -      dir = -1;
>> +      bpts = arm_linux_get_debug_reg_state (pid)->wpts;
>> +      if (count > MAX_WPTS)
>> +        warning (_("arm-linux-gdb supports %d hardware watchpoints but target \
>> +                 supports %d"), MAX_WPTS, count);
> Like in the Aarch64 port, add a 'count = MAX_WPTS' as well, otherwise
> GDB would access the arrays out of bounds when that happens.
OK will update and repost.
>
>>       }
>>     else
>>       {
>>         count = arm_linux_get_hw_breakpoint_count ();
>> -      bpts = t->bpts;
>> -      dir = 1;
>> +      bpts = arm_linux_get_debug_reg_state (pid)->bpts;
>> +      if (count > MAX_BPTS)
>> +        warning (_("arm-linux-gdb supports %d hardware breakpoints but target \
>> +                 supports %d"), MAX_BPTS, count);
> Likewise.
OK will update and repost.
>
>>       }
>>   
>>     for (i = 0; i < count; ++i)
>>       if (!arm_hwbp_control_is_enabled (bpts[i].control))