From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3339 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 23:45:04 -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 3327 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 23:45:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 23:45:02 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01AD3D59; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D5D875F.6050405@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:45:00 -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: Joel Brobecker Cc: 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> <20020816230524.GT906@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2 >> 2 - However I should hold this change for now because you think I should >> write the adjusted PC value back to the target, by adding something >> like "write_pc_pid (stop_pc, ecs->ptid)" >> >> I will verify the impact of such a change, and report. > > > Good news :). Adding this does not introduce any regression, so no red > dragon lurking so far... Ya! >> 3 - Assuming we get all issues in this RFA resolved, then I will start >> looking at the addition of the software_singlestep flag. > > > I am starting to work on this one. > > I suggest for this RFA to: > - define a new boolean software_singlestep_p > - set it at the same time we adjust the PC when detecting sw single > step. > - Change the value of not_a_sw_breakpoint in the call to > bpstat_stop_status() to prepend a "sw_single_step_p ||". Yep, > As a next patch, we would add a new sw_single_step_p parameter to > bpstat_stop_status() to pass this value separately. Somebody elses problem (hmm, perhaps we could trick DanielJ into doing it ;-) Andrew