From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-80662-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8514 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2011 15:46:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 8500 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Apr 2011 15:46:49 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 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; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:46:34 +0000
Received: (qmail 623 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2011 15:46:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 28 Apr 2011 15:46:33 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2] Re: [commit] Re: [rfc][1/2] Signal delivery + software single-step is broken
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:46:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <201104281518.p3SFIGBM019969@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <201104281518.p3SFIGBM019969@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201104281646.33642.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00544.txt.bz2

On Thursday 28 April 2011 16:18:16, Ulrich Weigand wrote:

> Hmm, good point.  Indeed I was able to trigger that assert.
> 
> However, this is easily fixable just the same as in handle_inferior_event:
> if we already have a step-resume breakpoint, we don't need to insert
> another one, but just continue running until we hit the original one.
> 
> Fixed in the patch below, together with a test case that triggers
> the assert with the original patch.
> 
> Retested on armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi and i386-linux.
> 
> Does this look OK to you?

Yes, thanks!

-- 
Pedro Alves