Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole.

Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-04-12T18:25:48Z

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:16:14PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> I would think the "write_pc (next_pc)" statement in the
> !insert_breakpoints_p case should be unnecessary. This should
> already have been taken care of by infrun, shouldn't it?

I'm afraid I don't know what this is for. You're probably correct,
though.

> Also, I've noticed that none of the existing implementations
> makes any use of the "signal" argument. Should we remove this
> as well?

Sure.

> Finally, all single-step implementations currently have to
> fall back to global functions like read_pc (or current_regcache)
> to find the target registers. I understand this is something
> we should be moving away from, so if we're already changing
> the signature, maybe we should pass in a regcache argument?

Hmm, or a frame?

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery