From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25823 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2007 12:24:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 25809 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2007 12:24:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:24:44 +0000 Received: from dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.95] helo=caradoc.them.org) by nevyn.them.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HOYib-00041n-0U; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:24:37 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HOYia-0000Mb-PK; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:24:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Emi SUZUKI , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole. Message-ID: <20070306122436.GA1200@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andreas Schwab , Emi SUZUKI , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070228.170713.193706115.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> <20070228114545.GB4620@caradoc.them.org> <1172678940.20041.13.camel@localhost> <20070302.214729.183026252.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:00:21PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Emi SUZUKI writes: > > > + /* Assume that the atomic sequence ends with a stwcx instruction > > + followed by a conditional branch instruction. */ > > + if ((insn & STWCX_MASK) != STWCX_INSTRUCTION) > > + error (_("Tried to step over an atomic sequence of instructions but could not find the end of the sequence.")); > > I don't think error should be called here. It would probably be better to > just continue with the normal single-step here. Maybe a (once-only) warning? It would be nice to let the user know we're confused. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery