From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <simark@simark.ca>
Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F8493840C2D
 for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:51:05 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 8F8493840C2D
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca
Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32BEE1E111;
 Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:51:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why enforcing sw_breakpoint_from_kind() implementation in
 GDBserver targets
To: Shahab Vahedi <shahab.vahedi@gmail.com>,
 Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Shahab Vahedi <shahab@synopsys.com>
References: <20200610174702.GA3486@gmail.com>
 <8f80e486-cca4-819b-7316-329832df985f@simark.ca>
 <20200611094048.GA1270@gmail.com>
 <07362b1e-3b9b-a858-ce7a-9a27daff511a@linaro.org>
 <20200611110053.GD1270@gmail.com>
From: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>
Message-ID: <335e5978-4893-b355-69cd-98a101f8dd2e@simark.ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:51:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200611110053.GD1270@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 SPF_HELO_PASS, 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 <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb>,
 <mailto:gdb-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb>,
 <mailto:gdb-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:51:10 -0000

On 2020-06-11 7:00 a.m., Shahab Vahedi wrote:
> 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.

If all the gdbserver targets we support do support Z0, then yes I think
we could consider doing that.  How would we do it?  Make insert_point
and remove_point virtual pure to force sub-classes to implement them
with something meaningful?

Note that this would only concern GDBserver, other server implementations
of the remote protocol are free to support Z0 or not.  But we could decide
that all GDBserver ports have to support it.

Simon