From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68454 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2015 18:13:49 -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 68444 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jun 2015 18:13:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:13:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D6F35996F; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t59IDim6003510; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 14:13:45 -0400 Message-ID: <55772CD8.9070106@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:13:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problems with finishing a dummy function call on simulators. References: <1433862056-18237-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <55772797.802@redhat.com> <55772C14.5090501@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <55772C14.5090501@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 On 06/09/2015 07:10 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >> Not exactly sure what to do here. Maybe we should stop considering >> permanent and non-permanent breakpoints at the same address as >> duplicates. That should result in GDB inserting the non-permanent >> one, I think. Or we could get stop marking permanent breakpoints >> as always inserted, and let normal breakpoints insert on top of >> permanent breakpoints normally. See also: >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-03/msg00174.html > > That sounds a bit hacky. Can you clarify? There are two suggestions above, in addition to a url showing even more ideas. So I don't know what you're referring to. :-) Thanks, Pedro Alves > Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having > permanent breakpoints in the first place? > > It looks like non-gdbserver targets are not ready to support these > tricky constructs/optimizations unfortunately. I'm afraid adding more > hacks here and there will cause the code to get even more confusing > without a generous amount of code comments. And i'm not even sure the > bp_finish check is the best solution either. After all, there is the > stepi case too. > > We could probably fix the simulators, but then again there are > proprietary ones we cannot easily fix.