From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25118 invoked by alias); 10 May 2007 21:36:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 25098 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2007 21:36:34 -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, 10 May 2007 21:36:28 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5A14B267; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:36:27 -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 D7A4D4B262; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:36:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HmGJE-0000mv-F6; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:36:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Emi SUZUKI , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole on PPC Message-ID: <20070510213624.GA2822@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Emi SUZUKI , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070510.195725.01365398.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> <200705102130.l4ALUrjf017717@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705102130.l4ALUrjf017717@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: 2007-05/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:30:53PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > This looks just like a problem we fixed for the combined debugger; > cancel_breakpoints_callback should cancel SIGTRAP events caused by > software single-step breakpoints just the same as those caused by > other breakpoints. Maybe it would be more elegant to anticipate the day that single step breakpoints are completely normal: make breakpoint_inserted_here_p check them? This is already the only caller. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery