This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Let gdbserver doesn't tell GDB it support target-side breakpoint conditions and commands if it doesn't support 'Z' packet
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Hui Zhu <hui_zhu at mentor dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:37:54 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let gdbserver doesn't tell GDB it support target-side breakpoint conditions and commands if it doesn't support 'Z' packet
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5265022F dot 8060203 at mentor dot com> <52654A2C dot 9010202 at redhat dot com> <529707C7 dot 4040504 at mentor dot com> <5298AE7C dot 6020607 at redhat dot com> <529C80D2 dot 2080608 at mentor dot com>
On 12/02/2013 12:45 PM, Hui Zhu wrote:
> On 11/29/13 23:10, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> > On 11/28/2013 09:07 AM, Hui Zhu wrote:
>> >
>>> >> + if (have_target_target_side_commands)
>> >
>> > This can now just be:
>> >
>> > if (!VEC_empty (agent_expr_p, bp_tgt->tcommands))
>> >
>> > OK with that change.
>> >
>>> >> + {
>>> >> + warning (_("\
>>> >> +Target doesn't support breakpoints that have target side commands."));
>> >
>> > I was doing to suggest making this an error instead, that
>> > insert_bp_location would print the error string, but that's
>> > only true for hw breakpoints... insert_bp_location's error
>> > handling is quite messy. For instance, if this breakpoint
>> > is in a a shared library, this will disable the breakpoint,
>> > even though the cause of the error is clearly not that the
>> > shared library disappeared (i.e., not a memory error).
>> >
>>> >> + return -1;
>>> >> + }
> Updated the patch according to your comments.
But you switched to "error" anyway? Above I was saying that I
was going that suggest it, but then explained why I didn't think
it would work. Was I wrong?
>
> And I make a patch for dprintf.exp and mi-dprintf.exp to make test OK on the target that doesn't support "Zx" packets.
>
> The patches were tested and pass regression test on X86_64 and PPC.
(It's best to stick to one patch per email, otherwise things
end up confusing. I suggest looking into git send-email.)
--
Pedro Alves