From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27945 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 15:33:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 27935 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 15:33:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:32:59 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B822D4B26F; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:32:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3062B4B262; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:32:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hc1I7-0000hw-TM; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:32:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole. Message-ID: <20070412153255.GA32044@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070412133451.GA16668@caradoc.them.org> <200704121458.l3CEwLu1024008@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704121458.l3CEwLu1024008@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-04/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:58:21PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > 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? "Yes please". That's one of the reasons I wanted to get the common helper in place. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery