From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 656 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2002 01:23:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 591 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2002 01:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2002 01:23:51 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B8A3DF7; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:23:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C7C3525.2070209@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:23:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Disable [eE] packets by default References: <3C79867F.3000906@cygnus.com> <3C798723.4D4B@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00706.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> This is a followup to the current discussion regarding the [Ee] packets. >> It disables them by default. >> >> While it is a brutal solution to a problem, it is also 6 days before 5.2 >> branches. It also clears the slate for another attempt at this. >> >> Thoughts? > > > I think this is the right thing to do. Previously we had > no way to test the 'e' packet. Now that we do have, it is > seen to be buggy. This is like an unreliable optimization. > You can give the user the opportunity to use it if he chooses, > but you don't turn it on by default. It is in. We're now free to figure out how to really make this work :-) > I would like to start discussing the right way to implement this. > For one thing, the current implementation has remote.c snatching > control away from infrun, and doing something completely > different from what infrun asked it to do. I'd like to have > the decision about whether to use step-over-range made in > infrun, not in the target layer. Yes, definitly. I suspect step-out-of-range is a special case of step. I think the decision to try to use both should be made by infrun.c. As RichardE recently re-discovered, the way single-step is structured is similarly wierd. Fortunatly the consequences are not so bad. Andrew