From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18873 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 18:25:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 18859 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 18:25:47 -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 19:25:44 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4E44B267 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:25:43 -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 31B844B262 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:25:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hc3zK-0000FP-Mh for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:25:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole. Message-ID: <20070412182542.GA937@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070412153255.GA32044@caradoc.them.org> <200704121716.l3CHGECu008290@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704121716.l3CHGECu008290@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/msg00175.txt.bz2 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