From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6784 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2008 20:07:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 6774 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2008 20:07:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:07:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 26965 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2008 20:07:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 24 Jun 2008 20:07:33 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] set/show enable-software-singlestep Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Michael Snyder References: <1214331534.3601.1211.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1214331534.3601.1211.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806242107.22651.pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt> 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 A Tuesday 24 June 2008 19:18:54, Michael Snyder wrote: > There may be cases where gdb would be inclined to use > software singlestep, but you might not want it to. Examples: I understand you want this for reverse debugging, so let me ask: > * "target remote" to a target such as a simulator that > would be able to support normal singlestep. Should the support be reported by the stub instead?, as in: Can the target (stub/debug api) do single-stepping? Yes, cool. No? Bummer, will have to do software-singlestepping on the GDB's side. E.g, another similar issue with displaced stepping: (hey you just touched that option :-) ) I'm working with a target that supports stepping off breakpoints on the stub side. I was thinking of: Can the target (stub/debug api) step over breakpoints for me? Yes, cool. No? Bummer, will have to do displaced-stepping on the GDB's side. > * reverse debugging, where you can't predict the > "come-from" address of a jump instruction. Should software-singlestepping *always* be disabled while doing a reverse debug? If so, why do we need the command? Shouldn't it be enforced in the code? -- Pedro Alves