Re: single-step breakpoints

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-01T13:54:58Z

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 01:14:03AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Yes, erroring out is defenitely a better approach than warn and have
> things run away. Here's a patch and some adjustments to the testsuite
> to prevent the tests from going into an infinite loop.
>
> ok?
>
>
> Index: ChangeLog
> from Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
>
> * breakpoint.c (insert_single_step_breakpoint): Make a failure to
> insert a single-step breakpoint an error instead of a warning.
>
> * breakpoint.c (remove_single_step_breakpoints): Bail out early if
> no breakpoints are inserted.

Yeah, I think this is OK.

Ideally, of course, we wouldn't error here. But I'm not sure what
would be more sensible to do. We could quietly finish instead, but
that would go more than one instruction - quite bad.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery