From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17222 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2012 06:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 17214 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jul 2012 06:43:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ozlabs.org (HELO ozlabs.org) (203.10.76.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:43:34 +0000 Received: from kryten (ppp121-44-6-198.lns20.syd6.internode.on.net [121.44.6.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA1CA2C00F4; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:43:32 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 06:43:00 -0000 From: Anton Blanchard To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add multiple branches to single step through atomic sequence testcase Message-ID: <20120716164332.0bf00210@kryten> In-Reply-To: <20120613160613.GI18729@adacore.com> References: <20120606135557.7da37cbe@kryten> <20120606135828.0d87f888@kryten> <20120613160613.GI18729@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-07/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 Hi Joel, > I won't pretend I understand PowerPC code all that well, I only know > the basics. My only concern with this change is whether you might have > reduced the number of conditions being tested. I would have expected > this patch to *add* more code, and associated changes in the .exp > file. But apparently, the code update is sufficient. How does the > change work? I see two labels used twice, for instance? We don't have to update the .exp file because the entire larx/stcx appears as a single stepi, regardless of what we put inside it. I added the duplicate labels to test the duplicate branch detection in the previous patch: + /* Check for duplicated breakpoints. */ + for (index2 = 0; index2 < index; index2++) The gdb single step code has always handled this but since I was shifting code around I figured it was a good idea to test it. Anton