From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7364 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 17:55:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 7216 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 17:55:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:55:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k19HtrZr004156 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:55:53 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k19Htr118449 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:55:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-79.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.79]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k19HtrOb007152 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:55:53 -0500 Received: from ironwood.lan (ironwood.lan [192.168.64.8]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k19HuUpp010299 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:56:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:55:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/rs6000-aix] software_single_step gdbarch method no longer set Message-ID: <20060209105557.2eec5505@ironwood.lan> In-Reply-To: <20060207200351.GD1215@adacore.com> References: <20051231054133.GL4734@adacore.com> <20051231060032.GA17641@nevyn.them.org> <20060207200351.GD1215@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:03:51 -0800 Joel Brobecker wrote: > Makes sense, but ... > > > It's unfortunately a little trickier than that since remote targets > > don't currently report whether using software singlestep is OK :-( > > So setting the default behavior may not be simple. I know gdbserver > > needs some adjustment here. > > I don't have that much time in the forseeable future to work on this, > unfortunately. I would also like to work on some other cleanup > activities, including the procfs stuff (which I promised to Mark and > yet haven't had time to look at). > > So I'd rather see if my proposal can go in for now. I've just looked over your patch. It looks reasonable to me and I think it should go in. Kevin