From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10016 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 18:33:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 10008 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 18:33:02 -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; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:32:21 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C0D108C7; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:32:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1133C10009; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:32:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KqXdx-00074g-Av; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:32:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@vmware.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Displaced stepping just enable in non-stop mode Message-ID: <20081016183217.GA27176@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , pedro@codesourcery.com, teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@vmware.com References: <200810160107.42525.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20081016123422.GA31057@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00414.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 08:25:13PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Can we reliably use displaced stepping, or can't we? If we can do > that reliably in vast majority of use-cases, we should do that even > without non-stop. If we cannot do that reliably enough, we shouldn't > turn it on even with non-stop mode, or maybe refuse to turn on > non-stop, rather than risk screwing the users. We do not know whether it's reliable or not. It depends on properties of the target system that GDB has no knowledge of. But there's no way to use non-stop without displaced stepping; so we require it to work on any target that supports non-stop debugging. > We could also try to detect if it works, and display a warning if we > think it won't (RE the cases you described above). Hmm, that's an interesting idea. Pedro, what do you think - would autodetection work for the cases we've seen trouble? Something as simple as "can we write to _start" is probably enough, but I don't remember what the failure looked like with the record target; and in that case it may be complicated by the fact that we're initially going forwards and could write. > > I'm not sure what else to call displaced stepping. "Step around > > breakpoints"? > > The text mentions "out-of-line stepping", which sounds better to me. I like "set step out-of-line"... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery