From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29D973858D39 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:10:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 29D973858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1677582603; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yhf1zfm/iw45UFMYUgpSYy+EmnOHeaEL067JnCLO4JY=; b=io8PVNWFnDNW95YxLf/qmCsbwJnKztB+t4aSJTv0TFVbU8GzwXl2SLA57bOPg7//PUZkjk fTMxlSnCOmNzse3WpAD8ejTX6DrAABEnlndQiJmPDavgnT7ixvjNs9IlmM+TZAyXnqzwYR cYJR6O+yQE7r7NdtzIwDqOztW6glc2U= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-9-HpiF3nDfN3iVY1phVgQ_ig-1; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 06:10:02 -0500 X-MC-Unique: HpiF3nDfN3iVY1phVgQ_ig-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id j32-20020a05600c1c2000b003e9bdf02c9fso6749610wms.6 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:10:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1677582601; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:to:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yhf1zfm/iw45UFMYUgpSYy+EmnOHeaEL067JnCLO4JY=; b=NhQG0ru/v+NYM6hhAM3G8eKZEL34QddoqAySFRpdtfo4HA6cPMphaXbfT9C7ZLwyIJ NeG8vEjyZ08IBJJ+yJ2TdGYy9RjjOjO4y04rN9PscMtS6bAMVJS0pZM6Vtl8Uor1lpL/ t8u2DST6M90Y3oa5g5pOcdqNL/BB2okfonlhJEuwJYiOk8ghkl2nHfSXx78fVHlDZRUT kf0uOpQNQimqn/TyOHXocwQhmIEtX23HaDZt+oZBvUDH+e+xmDHhAvLPrxeGvc+VELnn AEUsJghpNzChTsnj6hVVSNPmpEkgf6f+GYrqmLu5Fk/JrZhbvnw4j1huyaFBCOQBS9ed ZgDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXYUjEN7TDcTRgYDgy9IcnbFBsAry5saJ4HK2M8J4ftDuiKnVHi qKXUpzxwSZhDdRm3nGKjLh0fM2CjL0ftJ4hskLAVPxgR7raFJwmm9xSGY0CAM7SAEnMl9/tekx6 NokF4kOPjW97z//jIijQWbCcKjVY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3416:b0:3eb:4162:7344 with SMTP id y22-20020a05600c341600b003eb41627344mr1827867wmp.22.1677582601261; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:10:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+4DHMC3xzgWKbpQSxrKQGM3witI30cTxAReoN42pSrIB++swfMM2KCGebzrIG9nrLDIO2v1w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3416:b0:3eb:4162:7344 with SMTP id y22-20020a05600c341600b003eb41627344mr1827856wmp.22.1677582600838; Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:10:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (95.72.115.87.dyn.plus.net. [87.115.72.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h18-20020a05600c351200b003eb192787bfsm12593771wmq.25.2023.02.28.03.10.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:10:00 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew Burgess To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Fix missing MI =breakpoint-deleted notifications In-Reply-To: <33c56fda-e8b0-026b-956e-e0494e63f0a4@palves.net> References: <33c56fda-e8b0-026b-956e-e0494e63f0a4@palves.net> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:09:59 +0000 Message-ID: <87ilfmhwqg.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Pedro Alves writes: > On 2023-02-20 2:13 p.m., Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote: >> This series all sprang from a single sentence in this patch review: >> >> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-February/196560.html >> >> In this patch (adding inferior specific breakpoints), at one point, I >> changed a breakpoints number to zero. Pedro asks the very good question: >> >> Doesn't this mess up MI breakpoint deleted notifications? >> >> Clearly what I wrote was wrong. But, confession: I copied the code in >> question from the code to handle thread-specific breakpoints. And if >> Pedro's point was true for my inferior-speicifc b/p, then it must be >> true for thread-specific b/p too, which means we have a bug. >> >> Patch #1 is a trivial drive by clean up. >> >> Patch #2 is an interesting issue I ran into relating to the MI output >> while writing tests for this issue. This patch is worth a review >> because I'm proposing a slight change to the MI output. >> >> Patches #3 to #7 are just testsuite cleanup. There's no GDB changes >> in here. This is all about making it easier for me to write the tests >> in the last patch. You can probably skip these if you're short on >> review time. >> >> Patch #8 is the important one. This adjusts how we handle >> thread-specific breakpoints to avoid the issue Pedro pointed out >> above. This fix was mostly trivial, except for a nasty knock-on >> problem in the Python FinishBreakpoints code. > > I read the whole series and replied to a number of patches where I > had something to say (though nothing major). Those I didn't reply to LGTM as is. > > Thanks for doing this. Appreciated. I made the changes you suggested and pushed this series. Thanks, Andrew