From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15208 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2002 01:34:59 -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 15176 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2002 01:34:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2002 01:34:56 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958833D1A; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CBF7449.90009@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix watchpoints when stepping over a breakpoint References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00620.txt.bz2 > 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