* gdbstub: fix IsMemoryBreak() returning false while connected to client
As a result, the only existing codepath for a memory watchpoint hit to break into GDB (InterpeterMainLoop, GDB_BP_CHECK, ARMul_State::RecordBreak) is finally taken,
which exposes incorrect logic* in both RecordBreak and ServeBreak.
* a blank BreakpointAddress structure is passed, which sets r15 (PC) to NULL
* gdbstub: DynCom: default-initialize two members/vars used in conditionals
* gdbstub: DynCom: don't record memory watchpoint hits via RecordBreak()
For now, instead check for GDBStub::IsMemoryBreak() in InterpreterMainLoop and ServeBreak.
Fixes PC being set to a stale/unhit breakpoint address (often zero) when a memory watchpoint (rwatch, watch, awatch) is handled in ServeBreak() and generates a GDB trap.
Reasons for removing a call to RecordBreak() for memory watchpoints:
* The``breakpoint_data`` we pass is typed Execute or None. It describes the predicted next code breakpoint hit relative to PC;
* GDBStub::IsMemoryBreak() returns true if a recent Read/Write operation hit a watchpoint. It doesn't specify which in return, nor does it trace it anywhere. Thus, the only data we could give RecordBreak() is a placeholder BreakpointAddress at offset NULL and type Access. I found the idea silly, compared to simply relying on GDBStub::IsMemoryBreak().
There is currently no measure in the code that remembers the addresses (and types) of any watchpoints that were hit by an instruction, in order to send them to GDB as "extended stop information."
I'm considering an implementation for this.
* gdbstub: Change an ASSERT to DEBUG_ASSERT
I have never seen the (Reg[15] == last_bkpt.address) assert fail in practice, even after several weeks of (locally) developping various branches around GDB. Only leave it inside Debug builds.
- Can be used in either DynCom or Dynarmic mode
- Added support for threads
- Proper support for FPU registers
- Fix for NibbleToHex conversion that used to produce false error codes
- Fix for clang-format failing under Windows
Currently, this is only ever queried, so adding a function to check if the
server is enabled is more sensible.
If directly modifying this externally is ever desirable, it should be done
by adding a function to the interface, rather than exposing implementation
details directly.
