From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-48647-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27353 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2007 07:08:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 27337 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2007 07:08:22 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from 195.22.55.53.adsl.nextra.cz (HELO host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net) (195.22.55.53)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 08:08:15 +0100
Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) 	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3T783Gd016403; 	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:08:03 +0200
Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) 	by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l3T77fwh016402; 	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:07:41 +0200
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 15:50:00 -0000
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
To: Luis Machado <luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Single stepping over atomic instruction sets for GDB 	6.6
Message-ID: <20070429070740.GA16359@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
References: <1177352371.15414.29.camel@localhost> <20070428175641.GA2136@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <1177803342.6280.54.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1177803342.6280.54.camel@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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/msg00395.txt.bz2

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:35:41 +0200, Luis Machado wrote:
...
> I'd like to better understand your patch. So please, if you could go
> through the modifications, that would be nice.

Your patch sets SINGLESTEP_BREAKPOINTS_INSERTED_P conditionally, according to
whether SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP () was successful.
SINGLESTEP_BREAKPOINTS_INSERTED_P was always set before so the original GDB
code does not expect it can be unset.

I have updated the code to handle the case when SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP () failed
(and so SINGLESTEP_BREAKPOINTS_INSERTED_P is unset; it could safely fail to
software singlestep because hardware singlestepping feature is available).


Regards,
Jan