From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4089 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2007 14:53:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 4081 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2007 14:53:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ics.u-strasbg.fr (HELO ics.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:52:56 +0000 Received: from ICSMULLER (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by ics.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ABE18701A; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:57:26 +0100 (CET) From: "Pierre Muller" To: "'Vladimir Prus'" , References: <200711231623.04823.vladimir@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200711231623.04823.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Subject: RE: [RFA] Clarify infrun variable naming. Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <005c01c82de0$9400be20$bc023a60$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: en-us Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00423.txt.bz2 > + If we hit a breakpoint or watchpoint, and then continue, > + we need to single step the current thread with breakpoints > + disabled, so that to avoid hitting the same breakpoint or > + watchpoint again. And we should step just a single > + thread and keep other threads stopped, so that > + other threads don't miss breakpoints while they are removed. > + > + So, this variable simultaneously means that we need to single > + step current thread, keep other threads stopped, and that > + breakpoints should be removed while we step. But this is the reason of the failure to catch watchpoints that happen at the point where we are just stepping over a breakpoint, because we step with the watchpoints disabled. Why don't we enable all break- and watchpoints but the ones that do have the same PC we are currently? Enabling at least all watchpoints would fix gdb/38 failure as seen in gdb.base/watchpoint.exp where it is noted as a KFAIL. I tried to check this by adding a insert_watchpoint function a few days ago, but if you are working on it anyhow, and probably master this much better than I do, it would be great to solve that issue at the same time. Pierre