Re: [PATCH 4/7] range stepping: gdb

Yao Qi
2013-05-15T08:07:36Z

On 05/15/2013 02:31 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> This is problematic. It's better to_not_ have target itself decide
> when to range step or to single step, and peeking at "infrun-owned"
> variables. For example, with software watchpoints, GDB needs to have control
> of single-steps, in order to evaluate the watchpoints at after each
> instruction is executed, so trap_expected isn't enough. (My v3 adds a test for
> that, that v2 fails.)

I didn't take software watchpoint into account in V2, so probably some
problems there.

> I dislike the design of using PC checks here too :-/. That
> seems fragile, and potentially inefficient (considering GDB ever
> sending more than one range action per packet, that might end up
> fetching registers for threads unnecessarily). IMO, it's better to have

Sorry, I don't understand why it is inefficient.

--
Yao (é½å°§)