From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2342 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 20:09:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 2301 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 20:09:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate3.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.152) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:09:13 +0100 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3CK9B8T044802 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:09:11 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 l3CK9AMw4165686 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:09:10 +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 l3CK9Aui030351 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:09:10 +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 l3CK9Agl030348; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:09:10 +0200 Message-Id: <200704122009.l3CK9Agl030348@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:09:10 +0200 Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole. To: drow@false.org (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:09:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070412182542.GA937@caradoc.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at Apr 12, 2007 02:25:42 PM 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/msg00176.txt.bz2 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