From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K2W2t-0001Wr-84 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 14:43:15 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K2W2r-0001Wf-LC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 14:43:14 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38467 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K2W2r-0001Wc-GK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 14:43:13 -0400 Received: from relay2-v.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.76]:34904) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K2W2r-0002TB-BL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 14:43:13 -0400 Received: from localhost (mfilter5-v.gandi.net [217.70.178.39]) by relay2-v.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D872135BD for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 20:43:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay2-v.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.178.76]) by localhost (mfilter5-v.gandi.net [217.70.178.39]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1tdL6ltHVf+l for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 20:43:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [84.99.204.73] (73.204.99-84.rev.gaoland.net [84.99.204.73]) by relay2-v.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD68135DD for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 20:43:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48419C01.2040607@bellard.org> Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 20:42:09 +0200 From: Fabrice Bellard MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/5] Debugger enhancements References: <48414AC8.7080206@web.de> <484181C4.6080002@bellard.org> <484188D4.70103@web.de> In-Reply-To: <484188D4.70103@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Jan Kiszka wrote: > Fabrice Bellard wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I cannot accept the patches for several reasons: >> >> 1) You mix cosmetic and functional patches. > > Do you have specific hunks in mind? I'm a bit blind ATM, not seeing > where I changed coding style or naming for cosmetic reasons. You renammed mem_write_pc and mem_write_vaddr. BTW, why did you add 'len' and 'type' parameters to breakpoints ? I don't think it is a good idea to say that breakpoints/watchpoints apply to all processors. Such behavior should be handled at a higher level. It would also be interesting if the watchpoint/breakpoint implementation could be used to implement CPU watchpoints and breakpoints (I am thinking about the x86 DRx registers here). Fabrice.