From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21594 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2011 03:23:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 21586 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2011 03:23:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 03:23:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C092BAADE for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id hMo8GzD7Equx for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4852BAADA for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A2D881459BF; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:23:38 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 03:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Faster stepping amidst breakpoints Message-ID: <20110201032338.GI2384@adacore.com> References: <4D3A114D.7010301@tensilica.com> <20110123001433.GA6352@caradoc.them.org> <20110131044951.GG2384@adacore.com> <20110131151229.GA2915@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110131151229.GA2915@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 > As far as I can remember (you know how much GDB development I do > nowadays), the only risks were if GDB crashed and left the application > with breakpoints inserted. Of course, I'm in favor of GDB not > crashing. I see this as an acceptable outcome of a debugger crash. I am guessing that in most cases, people debug their program, and then want it killed, so leaving the inferior behind with breakpoints inserted won't matter much (or, not as much as having their session brutally interrupted by the crash itself). For the small number of those for whom it matters, they can change the switch back... I was more worried about possible issues during normal operations. For instance, has this been tested with software-single-step, for instance? What I'm going to do, to give it a little more exposure, is flip the switch in AdaCore's HEAD build, and monitor the testsuite results. Have you flipped the switch in CS's builds too? -- Joel