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 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.

I'd say we should remove it.  The use of the contents of the
static variable next_pc from a previous invocation strikes me
as suspect anyway -- what if we're in another thread now?

I don't have a way to test on alpha-linux unfortunately.  Do you?

> > 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?

I thought "resume" (where this is called) too low-level for
a frame to make sense.  You cannot single-step anywhere but
in the innermost frame, so a regcache seemed more appropriate.
(How would I actually get hold of a frame in resume?)

Bye,
Ulrich

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