From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: "Peter.Schauer" <Peter.Schauer@Regent.E-Technik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] if (INNER_THAN (read_sp(), step_sp - 16))
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:13:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B2AB1E7.C32AA591@cygnus.com>
References: <3B2A97C7.52A839FD@cygnus.com> <3B2A9EC8.7020106@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00314.html

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > But I have no idea how to detect the situation that you are
> > trying to test for.  So I'd like to toss it back to you.
> > Can you find a better way to test for this?  Maybe with
> > (ugh) another state variable?
> >
> > And if not, can you put those two lines into an ifdef,
> > so they won't affect targets for which they're not intended?
> 
> Well it can't be a (ugh) #ifdef :-)

Not even to temporarily circumvent a known bug?
I understand your objection (multi-arch, if not general
distaste), but there are lots of ifdefs in infrun.c already...

FYI, I was thinking along the lines of
	(currently_stepping (ecs)
#ifdef TM_i386SOL2_H
	&& !(step_range_end
	    && INNER_THAN (read_sp (), (step_sp - 16)))
#endif
	));

which would preserve the behavior on x86 solaris, while
protecting the rest of the world until Peter can come up
with a better implementation.

Michael