This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi, I make a tmp patch to make this idea clear. It test with testsuite is OK. And I still didn't change "record_not_record_set" cause I didn't have idea on it. Thanks, Hui On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:33, teawater <teawater@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry I forget a big part that need it. > When GDB work in replay mode, P record will set regs and memory in > record_wait. All of them can't be record. > > So what about set not_record flag to record_wait in replay mode, > record_insert_breakpoint and record_remove_breakpoint. > > And about the name of this flag, do you have some idea on it? > > > Thanks, > Hui > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 02:22, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote: >> teawater wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 03:16, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> teawater wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>> >>>>> About "record_not_record_set", It set record_not_record to let P >>>>> record doesn't record the memory and registers control behaviors of >>>>> GDB in function record_store_registers and record_xfer_partial. >>>>> >>>>> So I think the name "record_not_record_set" and >>>>> "record_skip_recording" are not very clear. >>>>> Could you please give me some advices on it? >>>> >>>> Yeah, that's pretty much the way I understood it. >>>> >>>> It sets a one-time flag that says "omit (skip) recording >>>> registers and memory that would otherwise be recorded". >>>> >>>> And if I understand correctly, this is to avoid adding >>>> changes to the record log that are made by gdb when it >>>> resumes the target. It's only called from "proceed()". >>>> >>>> I'm not completely clear on what those changes are. >>>> Is gdb modifying the PC? Or are you perhaps trying to >>>> avoid recording breakpoints? >>> >>> I think avoid recording breakpoints is the main affect. >>> Another function is help deal with displaced step. Of course, P record >>> and displaced step will not work together now. >>> >>> I think I add "record_not_record" function is because I want >>> record_store_registers and record_xfer_partial just record the user >>> level change, not for others. >>> What do you think about it? >> >> OK, so if we ignore displaced stepping for now, then can we >> limit the issue to breakpoints? >> >> Breakpoint writes will all pass through functions called >> memory_insert_breakpoint and memory_remove_breakpoint (mem-break.c). >> >> So what we want to do is get the information from there into >> record.c. I guess you could do pretty much what you are doing >> now, only call the access function from mem-break.c instead of >> from infrun. It would help to localize it and make its meaning >> clear. >> >> Maybe call it "dont_record_memory_breakpoint" or something like that. >> >> >
Attachment:
tmp-skip.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |