From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7240 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2008 00:37:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 7232 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2008 00:37:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:37:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 9450 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2008 00:36:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 5 Dec 2008 00:36:59 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] dummy frame handling cleanup, plus inferior fun call signal handling improvement Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" , Doug Evans References: <200812050018.mB50I05V031478@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200812050018.mB50I05V031478@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812050036.56899.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: 2008-12/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 On Friday 05 December 2008 00:18:00, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > > On Thursday 04 December 2008 22:32:12, Doug Evans wrote: > > > In the original code, is there a case when stop_pc != registers.pc? > > > > Here, > > > > > > (gdb) set $pc = 0xf00 > > (gdb) call func() > > Huh. But that case is in fact *broken*, because GDB will use stop_pc > incorrectly: for example, the check whether we are about to continue > at a breakpoint will look at stop_pc, but then continue at $pc. This one I believe was the original intention. The rationale being that you'd not want to hit a breakpoint again at stop_pc (0x1234), because there's where you stopped; but, you'd want to hit a a breakpoint at 0xf00, sort of like jump *$pc hits a breakpoint at $pc. Note, I'm not saying I agree with this. I did say that probably nobody would notice if we got rid of stop_pc. > It seems to me just about every current user of stop_pc *really* wants > to look at regcache_read_pc (get_current_regcache ()) ... I've been sneaking the idea of getting rid of stop_pc for a while now: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-06/msg00450.html In fact, I have a months old patch here that completelly removes stop_pc. IIRC, there were no visible changes in the testsuite. Say the word, and I'll brush it up, regtest, submit it. -- Pedro Alves