From 20e0185707b8d0fba3bf2002a0c3b6ffd0db4f3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Artem Lytkin <iprintercanon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 20:36:19 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Win32 debugger: refresh the breakpoint list after memcheck
 changes

The list reloads on SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY, which every CPU
breakpoint mutation in BreakpointManager has posted since 8d0d601b5, but
none of the MemCheck ones do, so a memory breakpoint added from the list
(or the disasm view's dialog, the ImDebugger, the WebSocket API) only
showed up after the next Break. The enable checkbox then toggled against
the list's stale copy of the memcheck, so re-enabling one it had just
disabled disabled it again. Post the notification from the memcheck
mutations too, and from the condition setters of both kinds, since the
list's cached copy also feeds the edit dialog.
---
 Core/Debugger/Breakpoints.cpp | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Core/Debugger/Breakpoints.cpp b/Core/Debugger/Breakpoints.cpp
index 67981bf320..bcdc07ec3d 100644
--- a/Core/Debugger/Breakpoints.cpp
+++ b/Core/Debugger/Breakpoints.cpp
@@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ void BreakpointManager::ChangeBreakPointAddCond(u32 addr, const BreakPointCond &
 		breakPoints_[bp].hasCond = true;
 		breakPoints_[bp].cond = cond;
 		currentMIPS->InvalidateICacheRangeDeferred(addr - 4, 8);
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -328,6 +329,7 @@ void BreakpointManager::ChangeBreakPointRemoveCond(u32 addr) {
 	if (bp != INVALID_BREAKPOINT) {
 		breakPoints_[bp].hasCond = false;
 		currentMIPS->InvalidateICacheRangeDeferred(addr - 4, 8);
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -438,6 +440,7 @@ int BreakpointManager::AddMemCheck(u32 start, u32 end, MemCheckCondition cond, B
 		}
 		updateMemChecks_ = true;
 		currentMIPS->ClearJitCacheDeferred();  // memchecks apply to all memory accesses
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 		return (int)memChecks_.size() - 1;
 	} else {
 		// Update with additional cond and action bits. Not sure if we should OR or override?
@@ -449,6 +452,7 @@ int BreakpointManager::AddMemCheck(u32 start, u32 end, MemCheckCondition cond, B
 		}
 		updateMemChecks_ = true;
 		currentMIPS->ClearJitCacheDeferred();  // memchecks apply to all memory accesses
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 		return (int)mc;
 	}
 }
@@ -464,6 +468,7 @@ void BreakpointManager::RemoveMemCheck(u32 start, u32 end)
 			MemBlockReleaseDetailed();
 		updateMemChecks_ = true;
 		currentMIPS->ClearJitCacheDeferred();  // memchecks apply to all memory accesses
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -476,6 +481,7 @@ void BreakpointManager::ChangeMemCheck(u32 start, u32 end, MemCheckCondition con
 		memChecks_[mc].action = action;
 		updateMemChecks_ = true;
 		currentMIPS->ClearJitCacheDeferred();  // memchecks apply to all memory accesses
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -498,6 +504,7 @@ void BreakpointManager::ChangeMemCheckAddCond(u32 start, u32 end, const BreakPoi
 		memChecks_[mc].hasCondition = true;
 		memChecks_[mc].condition = cond;
 		// No need to update jit for a condition add/remove, they're not baked in.
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -506,6 +513,7 @@ void BreakpointManager::ChangeMemCheckRemoveCond(u32 start, u32 end) {
 	if (mc != INVALID_MEMCHECK) {
 		memChecks_[mc].hasCondition = false;
 		// No need to update jit for a condition add/remove, they're not baked in.
+		System_Notify(SystemNotification::DISASSEMBLY);
 	}
 }