From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19212 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2003 03:09:35 -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 19204 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2003 03:09:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2003 03:09:35 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19pJLn-0000YZ-Pr; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:09:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jimi Xenidis Cc: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: Powerpc and software single step Message-ID: <20030820030931.GA2109@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jimi Xenidis , Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney References: <16185.27333.689024.383508@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <1030819175512.ZM31220@localhost.localdomain> <20030819191300.GA24336@nevyn.them.org> <16194.42367.562777.115053@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <20030820023005.GA1004@nevyn.them.org> <16194.58265.207405.586920@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16194.58265.207405.586920@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:57:29PM -0400, Jimi Xenidis wrote: > >>>>> "DJ" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > DJ> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:32:31PM -0400, Jimi Xenidis wrote: > >> This sanity check is wierd, does it expect PT_STEP to be defined _and_ > >> not supported? > > DJ> It does happen. MIPS/Linux does that sometimes, so does anything else > DJ> where PT_STEP is restricted or broken. > > heh, go figure. > > >> My first attempt was to drag ppc/rs6000 into the gdbarch world and > >> drop the #defines all together. However, the test (_P) rotuine tests > >> a function pointer and it was not readily apparent how to have a set > >> command set a function pointer or actually run code to do so. Perhaps > >> pairing it with a gdbarch boolean? > > DJ> I'm not sure what you mean. > To quickly re-cap, I wanted to be able to switch the single step mode > dynamically by creating a "set" command. Unfortunately: > > int > gdbarch_software_single_step_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch) > { > gdb_assert (gdbarch != NULL); > return gdbarch->software_single_step != NULL; > } > > I do not see a way to assign this function pointer off of the set > command, unless there is a some trick I did not see. > maybe we could fix this with more code, but sadly I'm limited in my > ability to push out patches under the current circumstances. > > But all of these solutions are not the real one which probably takes > more commitment then available (at least from me at the moment ;-) set_gdbarch_software_single_step? You couldn't do it architecture-independently, perhaps. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer