From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16299 invoked by alias); 6 May 2003 16:45:10 -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 16275 invoked from network); 6 May 2003 16:45:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 May 2003 16:45:09 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19D5ZG-0006At-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 11:45:26 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19D5Yr-0006vB-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 12:45:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alain Magloire Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Catchpoint in GDB/MI Message-ID: <20030506164501.GA25457@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alain Magloire , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030506153130.GA27989@nevyn.them.org> <200305061612.MAA09299@node1.ott.qnx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305061612.MAA09299@node1.ott.qnx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:12:10PM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:15:50AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:50:47AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote: > > > > > Bonjour > > > > > > > > > > Anyone working on putting catchpoints in GDB/MI. > > > > > If yes what is the semantics. > > > > > If no what is the best semantic? Completely OOB: > > > > > > > > > > -catch load > > > > > ^done > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > *stop,reason="shared-loaded",shared="libm.so" > > > > > > > > Do we even have any targets besides HP/UX where shared library > > > > catchpoints _work_? > > > > > > Probably none, in the gdb source tree. For example, catching exceptions > > > is probably compiler dependent 8-( .. I think. Do remember Daniel Berlin > > > proposing a scheme for gcc long long time ago, could not retrace the email > > > though ... darn! > > > > I've actually added catchpoints for exceptions back; but they'll just > > show up as breakpoints for now. If we want them to show up differently > > someone's going to have to work out (both CLI and MI) what they should > > look like. > > > > Details please? 8-) > > Do you mean setting breakpoint on some special function used to throw > exception __raise_exception(..)? > > How does it work ? Yes. It's __cxa_throw and __cxa_begin_catch; I only implemented them for the GCC 3.x (i.e. multivendor) ABI. You can find the patch in the archives if you want to know more :) > > > > We need to fix them before we talk about their MI > > > > syntax, IMO. Similarly for most of the others. > > > > > > > > > > True, but there are a lot of MI commands that are define but > > > not implemented in the current tree or rather can not be implemented > > > in a clean way to be submit back. So not all gdb/mi are equal depending > > > on the distribution. But having the MI framework already in place is > > > a good step in normalizing(sp?). > > > > I'm not sure that catchpoints _can_ be normalized. The ones we have > > now are mostly extremely system dependent. > > > > Yes and with this in mind, I would advocate to put the MI framework/commands > in place even if they endup throwing "(not implemented)" on many platforms > or c++ compilers. My point is that the available information and semantics will vary a lot. For instance, which frame you're in when you hit them, et cetera. Perhaps you're right. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer