From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Use resume instead of target_resume when stepping over watchpoint.
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 03:34:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081030030805.GC3635@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48C71565.3050601@avtrex.com>
Pedro, Others,
What do you think of this patch? Personally, I have pretty much
convinced myself that it shouldn't do any harm, but I really
wished that "resume" would take a ptid as an argument. Except
that this is not trivial to do, and I think that the current
"resume" would need to be split a bit, to remove the code that
determines what to resume.
Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with this patch, but I'd love
for someone to take a look as well. This is a pretty delicate
part of the debugger. Do we really need the gdb_assert thought?
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 05:31:33PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> In handle_inferior_event() when stepping over a watch point currently we
> issue target_resume(). This only works on architectures that have
> hardware single step support. For gdbarch_software_single_step_p()
> systems (like MIPS), we need to insert a single step breakpoint instead.
>
> The fix is to call resume() as it does the right thing already. I also
> added an assert that inferior_ptid == ecs->ptid to be sure that resume()
> was stepping the proper thread.
>
> This is essentially the change requested by Daniel in:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00443.html
>
> This change is a prerequisite for my forthcoming MIPS hardware watch patch.
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu as well as mipsel-linux (in conjunction
> with the MIPS hardware watch patch).
>
> OK to commit?
>
> 2008-09-09 David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com>
>
> * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Call resume instead of
> target_resume when stepping over watchpoint.
>
>
> Index: infrun.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infrun.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.316
> diff -u -p -r1.316 infrun.c
> --- infrun.c 8 Sep 2008 22:10:20 -0000 1.316
> +++ infrun.c 9 Sep 2008 23:37:09 -0000
> @@ -2472,7 +2472,8 @@ targets should add new threads to the th
> if (!HAVE_STEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT)
> remove_breakpoints ();
> registers_changed ();
> - target_resume (ecs->ptid, 1, TARGET_SIGNAL_0); /* Single step */
> + gdb_assert (ptid_equal (inferior_ptid, ecs->ptid));
> + resume (1, TARGET_SIGNAL_0); /* Single step */
> waiton_ptid = ecs->ptid;
> if (HAVE_STEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT)
> infwait_state = infwait_step_watch_state;
--
Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-30 3:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-10 0:32 David Daney
2008-10-30 3:34 ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
2008-10-30 21:21 ` Pedro Alves
2008-10-30 21:43 ` Joel Brobecker
2008-10-31 2:13 ` David Daney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081030030805.GC3635@adacore.com \
--to=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=ddaney@avtrex.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox