From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-48429-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8346 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 20:16:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 8329 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 20:16:55 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:16:52 +0100
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3CKGiJx018362; 	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:16:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0/Submit) id l3CKGhcv015024; 	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:16:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:16:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200704122016.l3CKGhcv015024@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: uweigand@de.ibm.com
CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <200704122009.l3CK9Agl030348@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> 	(uweigand@de.ibm.com)
Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole.
References:  <200704122009.l3CK9Agl030348@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:09:10 +0200 (CEST)
> From: "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 suspect the write_pc call is there to make stepping delay-slot
instructions work.

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

I can test OpenBSD/alpha later this week if necessary.