From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16354 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 14:58:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16344 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 14:58:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate8.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate8.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.157) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:58:25 +0100 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate8.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3CEwLnt261154 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:58:21 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l3CEwLpS454882 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:58:21 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l3CEwLW4024011 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:58:21 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l3CEwLu1024008; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:58:21 +0200 Message-Id: <200704121458.l3CEwLu1024008@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:58:21 +0200 Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole. To: drow@false.org (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:58:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Luis Machado), gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070412133451.GA16668@caradoc.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at Apr 12, 2007 09:34:51 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-04/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 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