From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8584 invoked by alias); 1 May 2006 16:43:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 8576 invoked by uid 22791); 1 May 2006 16:43:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 May 2006 16:43:12 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k41GgbLa018101; Mon, 1 May 2006 18:42:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k41GgbkK009251; Mon, 1 May 2006 18:42:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k41GgbXo010549; Mon, 1 May 2006 18:42:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:43:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200605011642.k41GgbXo010549@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060501135452.GA1677@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 1 May 2006 09:54:52 -0400) Subject: Re: single-step breakpoints References: <200604252039.k3PKdaZ5020227@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060425210200.GA1153@nevyn.them.org> <200604252154.k3PLscQe005675@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200604292314.k3TNE3uH012648@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060501135452.GA1677@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2006-05/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 09:54:52 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > Index: ChangeLog > > from Mark Kettenis > > > > * 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. Thanks, committed. > 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. Actually the error is not too bad. It warns you that single-stepping is not possible and allows you to find another way of continuing. Mark