From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22751 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2010 10:13:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 22741 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2010 10:13:04 -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; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:13:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 30787 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2010 10:12:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Jun 2010 10:12:58 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Hui Zhu Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -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: <201006111455.36401.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006221112.56408.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/msg00475.txt.bz2 Hi Hui, On Sunday 20 June 2010 08:28:40, Hui Zhu wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 21:55, Pedro Alves wrote: > > 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. > > Thanks Pedro. > I was also confused by this issue too. I thought it will never happen > too. But Ping said he got this issue. And I didn't have the risc > board to test. So I gived up and put this patch to him. > > So I think this patch is not very hurry to checked in until some one > post a risc prec support patch. At that time, I will make this issue > clear. I'd be fine with putting the patch in now, but without the change to that gdb_assert. It looked like a step in the right direction, and we can fix any left issues later. -- Pedro Alves