From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10565 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2008 14:18:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 10556 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Oct 2008 14:18:19 -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; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:17:39 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E276010594; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:17:37 +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 A0EB91018D; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:17:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KupO5-0005nq-4v; Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:17:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Target can step over breakpoints itself Message-ID: <20081028141737.GB21659@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200810271419.00304.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810271419.00304.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: 2008-10/txt/msg00675.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 02:19:00PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > The attached patch adds a new "StepOverBreakpoints" feature to the > remote protocol to the remote stub can tell GDB that the debug api has > that feature, and exposes that knowledge to the rest of GDB by > adding a new target_ops method (target_can_step_over_breakpoints), > and teaching infrun.c to it doesn't need to do the traditional hold-and-step > dance (remove breakpoints, single-step, insert breakpoints) from the > inferior(s), if the target reports support for stepping over them > itself. > > Any objections/thoughts on this? Does DICOS hit breakpoints at the current PC if you continue, rather than step? I'd hope so - and if so, let's document that expectation. It's details like that which confuse people trying to implement the remote protocol. Does this need to be conditional on the type of breakpoint (hardware vs software, Z0 vs memory) or on the actual breakpoint? For instance, platforms with per-thread hardware breakpoints can 'step over' hardware breakpoints by temporarily removing them from just one thread; and I believe setting IA64_PSR_DD lets you step or continue over a breakpoint. That's all I can think of; it seems like a generally good idea. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery