From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26058 invoked by alias); 10 May 2007 23:25:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 26004 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2007 23:25:33 -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 23:25:31 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB75B4B267; Thu, 10 May 2007 18:25:28 -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 04ED24B262; Thu, 10 May 2007 18:25:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HmI0b-0002AG-DX; Thu, 10 May 2007 19:25:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:25:00 -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: <20070510232517.GA8056@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Emi SUZUKI , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070510213624.GA2822@caradoc.them.org> <200705102258.l4AMwSF4026578@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705102258.l4AMwSF4026578@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/msg00181.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:58:28AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > 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. > > Good point. Something like the patch below? I've also added the > check to software_breakpoint_inserted_here_p; that seemed to make > more sense that not. > > (I'm suspicious about adjust_pc_after_break, the only caller of > software_breakpoint_inserted_here_p anyway; I think this may no > longer be correct after the software single-step changes ...) Yes, while I was checking for callers of breakpoint_inserted_here_p I noticed that. There's no way this is correct any more; it only works because PowerPC has DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK == 0 and all other targets have a software_single_step routine which always returns the same value. I think your patch is OK. I suspect that it means the singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p check in adjust_pc_after_break is now obsolete; what do you think? That lets the function simplify a bit further. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery