Re: Powerpc and software single step

Andrew Cagney
2003-08-22T18:20:47Z

>>>>>> "AC" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
>
>
> >> Ok, its probably my lingo shortcommings.
> >> the ppc trees still use the olf MACROS:
> >> SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P (the predicate?)
> >> SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP (the function which is the gdbarch "vector")
>
> AC> What about a patch to eliminate the macros? Good incremental step.
>
> Agreed, but because the predicate tests the vector != NULL it is a
> step away from the feature I need, which is to change the evaluation
> of the preditcate at runtime.

It is a big step towards what GDB needs though.

> AC> Once created, the architecture object doesn't change - it's describing
> AC> the architecture and not the UI state.
>
> Ok, I see that now. How about adding a predicate vector to gdbarch
> being the "Good incremental step"?
>
> AC> I suspect that both Daniel and I are (each in a round about way)
> AC> suggesting that the code be modified to use a function containing all
> AC> those tests.
>
> Are you describing the function predicate, or an all singing all
> dancing single-step function (as I suggested as well).

I guess I'm describing an all singing all dancing software single step
predicate function. There are several problems here:

- the decision to use / not-use s/w single step (architecture? target? user?
- the actual implementation of s/w single step

It would partially address the first problem.

Andrew