Re: PATCH: Fork event updates, part the tenth

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 11:44:32AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Right now, there are four calls to bpstat_stop_status in infrun.c.  Three 
> >of
> >them are for catchpoints; right now, catchpoints should not be affected by
> >DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK, because they aren't breakpoints.  Hopefully
> >DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK will be gone from this code if anyone ever has a target
> >where they _are_ breakpoints.
> >
> >So, since a catchpoint is not a software breakpoint, we can just pass "1"
> >for NOT_A_SW_BREAKPOINT.  This prevents an incorrect PC decrement on
> >i386-linux with the upcoming fork catchpoint patches.  Committed.
> 
> Er, where is the fire?  Nothing involving decr pc after break is 
> obvious.  I think here you should at least be seeking a second opinion.

This is in blocks of code conditioned on TARGET_WAITKIND_{FORKED,VFORKED,EXECD}.
There are only two targets that ever return these; HP/UX (which has no
DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK) and i386-linux (in my working tree, which has
DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK, but in which catchpoints are unaffected by it).
The argument is labeled NOT_A_SW_BREAKPOINT, and these are known to not
be software breakpoints.  How much simpler can it get?

The fire is apparently that I lack your indefatigable patience.  I have
been submitting this same feature for several months now and it's
blocking me from doing anything else substantial without tripping on my
own feet repeatedly.

You've stated your preference; I'll throttle back and find something
else to do in the mean time.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer