From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14252 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2008 02:31:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 14244 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jul 2008 02:31:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:31:39 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529063BE4F; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFA] set/show enable-software-singlestep From: Michael Snyder To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker In-Reply-To: <20080710224727.GA20521@caradoc.them.org> References: <1214331534.3601.1211.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1214862215.3601.1525.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1215657970.3549.157.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200807101207.19744.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080710224727.GA20521@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:31:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1215829898.3549.235.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-7.fc7) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:47 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > I had understood the consensus was that the command would be > > useful for now. > > > > It would be really nice if someone that had a target that > > always required disabling software-singlestepping stepped forward > > to add the GDB/remote smarts to do it automatically, though. ;-) > > I'd like to have some conclusion on how normal software single step > and special software single step interact. Are all the things handled > in GDB's software single step routine also the responsibility of any > stub that claims single step support? > > Which is not how it works today - we let a powerpc gdbserver single > step most things, but detect atomic sequences in the client. This > avoids duplicating the logic across all stubs, but is slower. > > And do these special stepping types get turned off if you disable > software single stepping manually? Well, it seems to me that "normal single-step" is the base case, and "software single-step" is the special case. By telling gdb *not* to use software single-step, we're just telling it to revert to the "base" behavior, whatever that might be. It doesn't seem to me that the non-software-singlestep should then be obliged to emulate everything that might have been done by the special-case software singlestep.