From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Snyder To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Improve the "thread_step_needed" logic Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:05:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B2AB0DD.5D927A21@cygnus.com> References: <200106152335.f5FNZ9S02028@mvstp600e.cygnus.com> <20010615164433.A29314@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00313.html Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 04:35:09PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > > This is a fairly significant change, that both simplifies and > > improves the logic for deciding when a single thread should be > > stepped (to get past a breakpoint), rather than stepping all threads. > > In a nutshell, this replaces the state variable "thread_step_needed" > > with the following logic in resume(): > > > > While you're fixing this, could you please address my issue from last > week with this code? I'm pretty sure I did! Checking "step" at this point in resume() is not > correct, since it will have been cleared if SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P (). But I don't just check "step", I check "(step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)". That was specifically to address your issue. Do you think it fails to do so? > > > --- 879,913 ---- > > if (should_resume) > > { > > ptid_t resume_ptid; > > + > > + resume_ptid = RESUME_ALL; /* Default */ > > > > ! if ((step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p) && > > ! !breakpoints_inserted && breakpoint_here_p (read_pc ())) > > > + > > + #ifdef CANNOT_STEP_BREAKPOINT > > + /* Most targets can step a breakpoint instruction, thus executing it > > + normally. But if this one cannot, just continue and we will hit > > + it anyway. */ > > + if (step && breakpoints_inserted && breakpoint_here_p (read_pc ())) > > + step = 0; > > + #endif > > Specifically, those bits. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz Debian GNU/Linux Developer > Monta Vista Software Debian Security Team