Re: [RFA] Don't ignore consecutive breakpoints.

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Friday 30 November 2007 04:14:35 Michael Snyder wrote:

> > > Can you test your patch on an architecture that uses software SS?
> >
> > I've tested on arm-linux/qemu, which uses software single-step,
> > and got no regressions.
> >
> > Looking again at the patch, the code fragment I'm changing has
> > two side-effects:
> >
> > - Setting ecs->random_signal
> > - Setting stop_bpstat
> >
> > My patch has no effect on the way ecs->random_signal is set.
> > However, in the case when we've just single-stepped over
> > breakpoint, the original code will clear stop_bpstat, and in
> > my patch, it would be set. We will immediately report report
> > the hit of the consecutive breakpoint. Since we don't set
> > ecs->another_trap, the trap_expected variable will be reset
> > to 0 when we resume.
> >
> > So, is the patch OK?
>
> Thanks for the testing and analysis.
> I have no further objection.

Thanks, checked in.

- Volodya