From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9557 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2010 13:55:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 9529 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jun 2010 13:55:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:55:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 15287 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2010 13:55:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Jun 2010 13:55:39 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Hui Zhu Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.32-22-generic; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: ping huang , shuchang zhou , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder , paawan oza , Tom Tromey References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006111455.36401.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: 2010-06/txt/msg00263.txt.bz2 Hi Hui, > 3. Ping got some gdb_assert in sometime. And I am not close to his > board. So I didn't know what happen. So I add following: > @@ -1534,7 +1535,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to con > /* If STEP is set, it's a request to use hardware stepping > facilities. But in that case, we should never > use singlestep breakpoint. */ > - gdb_assert (!(singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step)); > + gdb_assert (!(execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD > + && singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step)); > > The lost one still need be test. I'm felling a bit dense, and I don't see what is that actually catching. If going backwards, the assertion always ends up evaled as true, nomatter if sofware single-steps are inserted or not, or whether `step' is set. Did you mean to assert that when going backwards, there shouldn't ever be software single-step breakpoints inserted? This patch is okay otherwise. Thanks. -- Pedro Alves