FreeChainXenon/binutils-gdb
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

* breakpoint.c (check_duplicates): Use the breakpoint's type, not

Browse source 
its address, to decide whether it's a watchpoint or not.  Zero
is a valid code address.
(update_breakpoints_after_exec): Admonishing comments.
* breakpoint.h (struct breakpoint): Doc fixes.
This commit is contained in:
Jim Blandy 2001-05-06 01:35:57 +00:00
parent 9f60f21b6d
commit 644a1fe1ca
3 changed files with 38 additions and 13 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

26
gdb/breakpoint.c
View file

@ -1144,7 +1144,17 @@ update_breakpoints_after_exec (void)
??rehrauer: Let's hope that merely clearing out this catchpoint's
target address field, if any, is sufficient to have it be reset
automagically. Certainly on HP-UX that's true. */
automagically. Certainly on HP-UX that's true.
Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>: Actually, zero is a perfectly
valid code address on some platforms (like the mn10200 and
mn10300 simulators). We shouldn't assign any special
interpretation to a breakpoint with a zero address. And in
fact, GDB doesn't --- I can't see what that comment above is
talking about. As far as I can tell, setting the address of a
bp_catch_exec/bp_catch_vfork/bp_catch_fork breakpoint to zero
is meaningless, since those are implemented with HP-UX kernel
hackery, not by storing breakpoint instructions somewhere. */
if ((b->type == bp_catch_exec) ||
(b->type == bp_catch_vfork) ||
(b->type == bp_catch_fork))
@ -1195,7 +1205,13 @@ update_breakpoints_after_exec (void)
/* If this breakpoint has survived the above battery of checks, then
it must have a symbolic address. Be sure that it gets reevaluated
to a target address, rather than reusing the old evaluation. */
to a target address, rather than reusing the old evaluation.
Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>: As explained above in the comment
for bp_catch_exec and friends, I'm pretty sure this is entirely
unnecessary. A call to breakpoint_re_set_one always recomputes
the breakpoint's address from scratch, or deletes it if it can't.
So I think this assignment could be deleted without effect. */
b->address = (CORE_ADDR) NULL;
}
}
@ -3734,7 +3750,11 @@ check_duplicates (struct breakpoint *bpt)
CORE_ADDR address = bpt->address;
asection *section = bpt->section;
if (address == 0) /* Watchpoints are uninteresting */
/* Watchpoints are uninteresting. */
if (bpt->type == bp_watchpoint
|| bpt->type == bp_hardware_watchpoint
|| bpt->type == bp_read_watchpoint
|| bpt->type == bp_access_watchpoint)
return;
ALL_BREAKPOINTS (b)