From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-58631-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14723 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2008 21:15:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 14712 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Sep 2008 21:15:24 -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; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:14:45 +0000
Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCD010CEF; 	Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:14:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF4810CEB; 	Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:14:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) 	(envelope-from <drow@caradoc.them.org>) 	id 1KfLP9-00087X-75; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:14:43 -0400
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:15:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, 	teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
Message-ID: <20080915211443.GB30767@caradoc.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>, 	"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, 	teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com> <20080915184245.GA21388@caradoc.them.org> <48CEB1F5.6080902@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48CEB1F5.6080902@vmware.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: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg00342.txt.bz2

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:05:25PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> If there is a breakpoint on the previous instruction, will you hit it
>> before or after de-executing that instruction? 
>
> Well, if trap insns are in place, that's what will be
> executed (not the shadow insn).

Presumably it'd be a hardware breakpoint.  Software breakpoints in
reverse execution seem... awkward.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery