From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10065 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 19:40:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10058 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 19:40:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 19:40:25 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7GJQRl07226 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:26:27 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7GJeMu02911; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:40:22 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7GJeLe24390; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:40:21 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7GJeIx31085; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:40:18 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:40:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020816194018.ZM31084@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Daniel Jacobowitz "Re: [RFA] enable software single step on alpha-osf" (Aug 16, 3:26pm) References: <20020718203205.GB26990@gnat.com> <3D4DBBC8.5000906@ges.redhat.com> <20020805184920.GC892@gnat.com> <3D5D323A.2030801@ges.redhat.com> <20020816182141.GJ906@gnat.com> <3D5D4E46.7080902@ges.redhat.com> <20020816192655.GA5213@nevyn.them.org> To: Daniel Jacobowitz , Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [RFA] enable software single step on alpha-osf Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00447.txt.bz2 On Aug 16, 3:26pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Expressions like: > > > > /* Pass TRUE if our reason for stopping is something other > > than hitting a breakpoint. We do this by checking that > > 1) stepping is going on and 2) we didn't hit a breakpoint > > in a signal handler without an intervening stop in > > sigtramp, which is detected by a new stack pointer value > > below any usual function calling stack adjustments. */ > > (currently_stepping (ecs) > > && prev_pc != stop_pc - DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK > > && !(step_range_end && INNER_THAN (read_sp (),(step_sp - 16))))); > > Which reminds me - does that use of INNER_THAN make even the slightest > sense on stack-grows-up architectures? I don't think it does. I don't think so either. Also, that magical value of 16 just can't be right for all architectures. But this is one of those areas where we have to be *very* careful. We can attempt to make well-meaning changes and then discover many months later that we've broken something that used work. For the above, I think we need to figure out the intent behind the condition INNER_THAN (read_sp (),(step_sp - 16), and then write an architecture dependent method for it. Kevin