From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31124 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2008 14:42:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 31116 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2008 14:42:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:42:18 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C278D9835A; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:42:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF049810F; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:42:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KBWCN-0003BJ-Ic; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:42:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFA] set/show enable-software-singlestep Message-ID: <20080625144215.GA12011@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder References: <1214331534.3601.1211.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080625125424.GC3700@adacore.com> <20080625133457.GA8020@caradoc.them.org> <200806251514.40869.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200806251514.40869.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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/msg00438.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:14:38PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > A Wednesday 25 June 2008 14:34:57, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > I think it should already be auto. can-use-software-singlestep is > > unintuitive - either do use it, don't use it, or use GDB's best > > judgement. And if the user selects to use it and it isn't supported, > > that's an error when we next want to singlestep. WDYT? > > Well, not really auto. If a ARM stub does software singlestepping itself > (say we add it to gdbserver), gdb will still do software > single-stepping (breakpoint dance), wont it? What Joel said elsewhere in the thread just now. If we get a stub that reports definitively that it can single step, that should take priority over GDB knowing that software singlestep is implemented for this architecture. Um, uh-oh. This will break the overloading of software single step for bypassing atomic operations. Clearly more thought is required! Another unfortunate note: we can't trust the vCont reply for this even though it's clearly the right thing :-( Since current versions of GDB reject replies without s/S. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery