From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11115 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2008 19:30:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 11077 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2008 19:30:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:29:44 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A49C32C093 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:03:27 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m5OJTjhZ3518648 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:29:45 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m5OJTe83020117 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:29:40 -0300 Received: from [9.18.238.36] (cmelo1.br.ibm.com [9.18.238.36]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5OJTeTZ020114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:29:40 -0300 Subject: Re: [RFA] set/show enable-software-singlestep From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1214331534.3601.1211.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1214331534.3601.1211.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1214335779.10496.21.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 11:18 -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > There may be cases where gdb would be inclined to use > software singlestep, but you might not want it to. Examples: > > * "target remote" to a target such as a simulator that > would be able to support normal singlestep. > > * reverse debugging, where you can't predict the > "come-from" address of a jump instruction. > > What do you guys think? Useful? It's a useful feature and looks OK. I'm just wondering how dangerous it would be to turn software single stepping off on PPC64 and stumble upon an atomic sequence and end up locked there (we use software single stepping explicitly to jump those sequences). Regards, Luis