From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10427 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 19:41:19 -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 10419 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 19:41:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 19:41:19 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CED83C8D; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D5D555D.9060508@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:41:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] enable software single step on alpha-osf References: <20020718203205.GB26990@gnat.com> <3D4DBBC8.5000906@ges.redhat.com> <20020805184920.GC892@gnat.com> <3D5D323A.2030801@ges.redhat.com> <20020816182141.GJ906@gnat.com> <3D5D4E46.7080902@ges.redhat.com> <20020816192655.GA5213@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00448.txt.bz2 > Which reminds me - does that use of INNER_THAN make even the slightest > sense on stack-grows-up architectures? I don't think it does. Even the 16 makes no sense! If you pull the code though, solaris (from memory) gets really bad test results .... >> would be changed to read: >> >> (trap_was_a_software_singlestep >> || ....) >> >> Hmm, looking at the above, on an architecture like the i386, the test >> ``prev_pc != stop_pc - DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK'' is probably false when if >> the code has just stepped off a single byte instruction :-( > > > Is there some way we can do this without growing that condition? It's > awful, and it makes very little sense; it feels like something that > should already have been handled. It will be an ``||'' and not an &&. Hence, while making it longer, it is at least simple to read and makes reasonable sense (unlike the other bits). My other suggestion was to add a new parameter ``trap_type'' but that I think can wait for later. But yes, eventually zapping that expression would be a good idea. > Yes, I'm trying to trick Joel into doing some of the > DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK cleanups that everyone keeps meaning to do. It's > just not being handled somewhere useful right now. Shh, .... Andrew