This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, jkratoch at redhat dot com (Jan Kratochvil)
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:55:15 -0600
- Subject: Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup
- References: <200907231224.n6NCOlAH001392@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
- Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Ulrich> Yes, it's the same concept, but those functions in the PIE patch have
Ulrich> some code that seems PIE specific (e.g. the entry point checks) that
Ulrich> should be moved to the caller (presumably solib-svr4.c in the PIE case)
Ulrich> to make the same infrastructure usable for both scenarios.
Yeah, I agree.
Ulrich> (In any case, moving this variable over to a struct inferior field
Ulrich> can be trivially done after Pedro's patches are merged; I'm not sure
Ulrich> we have to wait because of that ...)
I'm inclined to agree as a general rule that we shouldn't put too much
work into helping out uncommitted patches. In this case, though, we do
already have struct inferior, and I wonder if the seemingly steady
stream of needed fixes is making Pedro's to-do list impossible.
I suppose if he doesn't speak up then I won't object any more :-)
Ulrich> Unless I'm missing someting, the array in
Ulrich> print_one_breakpoint_location is about enum bptype member; I've
Ulrich> added a enum enable_state member here ...
Yes, my mistake. I frequently get confused since both sets of constants
start with `bp_'.
Tom