From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9282 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2004 16:19:36 -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 9262 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2004 16:19:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Oct 2004 16:19:33 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM6vI-0007Qs-Oh; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:38:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kei Sakamoto Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/m32r] Fix breakpoint bug Message-ID: <20041025153816.GA28488@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kei Sakamoto , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <01b101c4ac37$3adbf950$5169910a@E5A02646> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01b101c4ac37$3adbf950$5169910a@E5A02646> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:31:07PM +0900, Kei Sakamoto wrote: > Hello, > > m32r-tdep.c can't handle breakpoints on instructions executed > in parallel. It does not remove unnecessary parallel execution > bit from instructions and causes illegal instruction errors. > > The attached patch fixes this problem. > > OK to commit? > > 2004-10-07 Kei Sakamoto > > * m32r-tdep.c (m32r_memory_insert_breakpoint): Remove > unnecessary parallel execution bit. > (m32r_memory_remove_breakpoint): Ditto. > (m32r_breakpoint_from_pc): Update. I'm curious about the little endian case: + else /* little-endian */ + { + if ((addr & 3) == 0) + { + buf[0] = contents_cache[0]; + buf[1] = contents_cache[1] & 0x7f; + buf[2] = bp_entry[1]; + buf[3] = bp_entry[0]; } Shouldn't the breakpoint be placed at buf[0] here rather than buf[2]? -- Daniel Jacobowitz