From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11475 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2008 14:51:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 11467 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Oct 2008 14:51:19 -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; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:50:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 1161 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2008 14:50:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Oct 2008 14:50:42 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Displaced stepping just enable in non-stop mode Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:51:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , teawater@gmail.com, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@vmware.com References: <20081016123422.GA31057@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200810171550.41055.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00430.txt.bz2 On Thursday 16 October 2008 19:25:13, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Since we are prepared to decide that turning non-stop turns on > displaced stepping, I understand that in most cases displaced stepping > does work, which brings me to the conclusion that we could use > displaced stepping even without non-stop. The target itself could support stepping over breakpoints without requiring us to use displaced stepping on the core side. DICOS falls in that category, I just haven't submitted the patch yet to make the target report support for it (along with a qSupported feature). If the target doesn't report support for it, we fallback to displaced stepping, and that requires gdbarch support. > 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). That would be a warning that brings no value to the user in all-stop mode. If the user sees: "warning: you can not use displaced stepping on this platform". He/she will think that something is wrong, while at least currently, no functionality the user cares for is lost (in all-stop). > > 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 have no idea why "displaced stepping" was chosen in the first place --- that pre-dates me. -- Pedro Alves