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

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:25:26AM -0300, Luis Machado wrote:
> > The typos were corrected and the gdbarch.[c|h] files were updated with
> > gdbarch.sh, though the comment was just added to gdbarch.h, not
> > gdbarch.c, is this correct?
> 
> Yes, it is.  This version is fine.

I've checked this in now.

While we're on this topic, I'm wondering whether we could do some
further simplification on the single-step code.  In particular, 
now every single-step implementation makes use of the 
insert_single_step_breakpoint helper to insert breakpoints,
and the !insert_breakpoint_p side of every single-step implementation
consist of a sole call to the remove_single_step_breakpoints helper.

It might be a good idea to actually enforce that behaviour.  In fact,
we could just *remove* the insert_breakpoint_p flag of the gdbarch
callback, call that callback solely in insert the breakpoints (which
*must* use the insert_single_step_breakpoint helper), and just call
remove_single_step_breakpoints directly from common code instead of
the gdbarch callback to remove the breakpoints.

That would allow future changes to the details of single-step 
breakpoint implementation in common code without having to go
through all implementations every time ...

What do you think?

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com