From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32236 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2002 15:17:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32211 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2002 15:17:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2002 15:17:15 -0000 Received: from cs2876-108.austin.rr.com ([24.28.76.108] helo=branoic) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17Ms42-0001IU-00; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:17:06 -0500 Received: from drow by branoic with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Ms3Y-0004Lb-00; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:16:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Peter Barada Cc: Peter.Barada@motorola.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Torubles with remote stub for m68k Message-ID: <20020625151636.GA16694@branoic.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Barada , Peter.Barada@motorola.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200206242104.g5OL4pY06652@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> <20020624211258.GA30001@branoic.them.org> <200206242140.g5OLe0L06792@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> <200206242156.g5OLumH25691@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> <20020624220628.GB31470@branoic.them.org> <200206251512.g5PFCxZ26374@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200206251512.g5PFCxZ26374@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:12:59AM -0400, Peter Barada wrote: > > >> Any help is appreciated! > > > >If GDB sets the breakpoint using 'M' (or presumably 'X') commands, then > >it is the client's responsibility to clear it. It would be nice to > >know why that isn't happening. To observe it in action you can use > >gdbserver on a GNU/Linux system... > > Huh? That doesn't make sense(at least to me)... > Why would gdb go to all the trouble of writing the breakpoint and the > force the stub to remove it? Does the stub have to remove the > breakpoint when gdb is reading memory(say for x/10i $pc)? How can the > stub manage an unbounded number of breakpoints this way(wouldn't the > stub be required to allocate memory)? Where in the documentation is > this 'symbiosis' mentioned where gdb sets breakpoints and the stub is > responsible for removing them while stepping? > > Besides, this stub works fine with gdb-4.16 and gdb-4.18, so what's changed? > > I can see that if the 'Z' commands are used to set breakpoints then > the stub is responsible for managing them, but not the 'M' command... > > Again, any help is appreciated! Terminology skew. "the client" is GDB, not the stub; the stub is essentially a server, like gdbserver is. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer