From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65E83840C3D for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:00:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org C65E83840C3D Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id w16so5443006ejj.5 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:00:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-description:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=xUxY/nXTrhuT/Fg7HMnvkgNWVrja81lFLrOERncFxno=; b=Jv4iPneEiDslhjxpfEF3fO1P3KsGujbkJ4tlzLXsmVWrWjlauHBDxmf6mZhp/83Erx GiASGJ2nYKBKFhED4VKl3Zj/4A6OtT+XDefhF++bjYNm7e+a/ope0vePijfNB2PJv+4b /Dpj+4V9h7iJWTHhGKytDa+J9nGAXiy9dKuWDWOXKjz7qOk1JqqY25PMbtXNq11SnNVK 1/i09PRXeOSVDz4FD8r2e9xeBPNXdtXoqhbjkwNI4u57QnQKBkQFAjwszOHii+smsCJy m4QWiK4GncK15ssEq5Y2BqDIcUmITIAwiE7yT2NKwkL8Vu0GWPAEnfctDIyQP5cK9g4g kitA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530QgSaer0i2vIoDNl+E8eT14IvMF1RUY7snswLC8nBQZFSCo4P+ GQ3Or4LDl18+Yu2Zqp0N2Og= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxl6TQ5ubja9AipJG+sAWtSBeTUsiI71M34RZgFAPFj7MDCQgtKWEV7aPJvH4am1tJDiHx6KQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:73db:: with SMTP id n27mr7582187ejl.16.1591873253203; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com ([2a03:1b20:3:f011::6d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lw11sm1638917ejb.58.2020.06.11.04.00.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:00:53 +0200 From: Shahab Vahedi To: Luis Machado Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb@sourceware.org, Shahab Vahedi Subject: Re: Why enforcing sw_breakpoint_from_kind() implementation in GDBserver targets Message-ID: <20200611110053.GD1270@gmail.com> References: <20200610174702.GA3486@gmail.com> <8f80e486-cca4-819b-7316-329832df985f@simark.ca> <20200611094048.GA1270@gmail.com> <07362b1e-3b9b-a858-ce7a-9a27daff511a@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: respone_2_luis_and_simon Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <07362b1e-3b9b-a858-ce7a-9a27daff511a@linaro.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 11:01:00 -0000 Hi Luis, Simon, On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:35:33AM -0300, Luis Machado wrote: > On 6/11/20 6:40 AM, Shahab Vahedi via Gdb wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > The ARC GDB client inserts the breakpoint by writing to memory (the > > legacy way). With your explanations, I plan to add the Z0 packet > > support to it. Nevertheless, should it be still necessary to have > > "sw_breakpoint_from_kind" in GDBserver as a mandatory method? Simon, I thought about this a little. Are we aiming for deprecating the old way? Then I guess that's the way to go. > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:05:38PM -0400, Simon Marchi wrote: > > > I'd look into why that is the case. GDB tries Z0 first and falls back to the > > > memory write if Z0 is not supported, so your GDBserver must not support it for > > > some reason. > > > > I am not sure why this could be the case. I will investigate that. > > Probably because the ARC port doesn't implement low_insert_point and > low_remove_point? There is only a dummy Linux implementation, and Linux > implementations for insert_point/remove_point. Luis, indeed it does not. Shahab