From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14344 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2003 15:54:23 -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 14332 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2003 15:54:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 2003 15:54:23 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5122B7F; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F463CA9.5000900@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:54:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jimi Xenidis Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Powerpc and software single step References: <16185.27333.689024.383508@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <1030819175512.ZM31220@localhost.localdomain> <20030819191300.GA24336@nevyn.them.org> <16194.42367.562777.115053@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <20030820023005.GA1004@nevyn.them.org> <16194.58265.207405.586920@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <20030820030931.GA2109@nevyn.them.org> <3F4398EC.2050405@redhat.com> <16195.39851.78762.619597@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <3F4440F0.30007@redhat.com> <16198.6133.411978.563514@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00392.txt.bz2 >>>>>> "AC" == Andrew Cagney writes: > > > AC> It may be possible to wrap software single step's predicate in a > AC> function that, like the remote protocol, returns the predicate, or > AC> always false. > >> > >> It is my understanding that the predicate is use to conditionally wrap > >> the "vector" is it usefull for the predicate to be anything more then > >> a boolean in gdbarch? > > AC> Sorry, I don't understand your question. > > Ok, its probably my lingo shortcommings. > the ppc trees still use the olf MACROS: > SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P (the predicate?) > SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP (the function which is the gdbarch "vector") What about a patch to eliminate the macros? Good incremental step. > since the eval of the predicate is checked before the function is > called I opted to toy with the predicate in is macro form to decide > its value. Unfortunately in gdbarch land the predicate > simply tests for the vector being !=NULL. > > So my quiestion is really about introducing a boolean to gdbarch that > can changed by some user action (such as set). But if it is the "test > then call" itself that you are objecting to then obviously this will > not solve that. Once created, the architecture object doesn't change - it's describing the architecture and not the UI state. There are a number of factors that determine if software single step should be used: - architecture supports/implemented it - target doesn't support hardware single step (to be done) - user requested that software/hardware stepping be used (your addition) I suspect that both Daniel and I are (each in a round about way) suggesting that the code be modified to use a function containing all those tests. Andrew