From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>
To: "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: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:14:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B37E1FA.868719D9@cygnus.com>
References: <200106230933.LAA24205@reisser.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> <3B37DEEA.8BB876E6@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00410.html

Michael Snyder wrote:

> To demonstrate this problem, build the "gdb.base/break.exp" test case
> and load it into GDB.  Set a breakpoint at line 79, the call to
> printf(factorial(atoi("6))).  Now set a breakpoint on the last
> instruction of this line, and attempt a "next".  On my red hat 7.0
> linux system, this causes the inferior to SEGV, because it resumes
> after the breakpoint without decrementing the PC (because it failed
> to recognize that it was at a breakpoint).

Aaaaannnd I picked a bad example.  Your step_sp - 16 code is not the
cause of this segv (in fact this reveals _another_ bug).  Let me see
if I can reconstruct my example (it's been a long week and I did not
take notes).