Re: [RFA] Fix watchpoints when stepping over a breakpoint

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> As far as I can tell, the i386 backend can't locally differentiate 
>> between a single step trap or a breakpoint trap.
> 
> 
> Really?  I thought the single-step bit in EFLAGS should be set if we are 
> stepping.
> 
> In general, I'd love to see changes in GDB that would delegate more to 
> the backend.  I think GDB's application level tries to second-quess the 
> target too much, which is hard without having all the target-dependent 
> details.  This is particularly true in the area that started this thread.
> GDB should request more information from the backend instead of trying to 
> figure that out on its own, IMHO.

I suspect I need two bits of information:  the stop signal and the 
hardware registers.  I didn't know the single-step bit would remain set.

I'll try to give it another go (but don't hold your breath :-)

Andrew