Re: Powerpc and software single step

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

>>>>>> "AC" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>  >> 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")
> 
>  AC> What about a patch to eliminate the macros?  Good incremental step.
> 
> Agreed, but because the predicate tests the vector != NULL it is a
> step away from the feature I need, which is to change the evaluation
> of the preditcate at runtime.

It is a big step towards what GDB needs though.

>  AC> Once created, the architecture object doesn't change - it's describing 
>  AC> the architecture and not the UI state.
> 
> Ok, I see that now.  How about adding a predicate vector to gdbarch
> being the "Good incremental step"?
> 
>  AC> I suspect that both Daniel and I are (each in a round about way) 
>  AC> suggesting that the code be modified to use a function containing all 
>  AC> those tests.
> 
> Are you describing the function predicate, or an all singing all
> dancing single-step function (as I suggested as well).

I guess I'm describing an all singing all dancing software single step 
predicate function.  There are several problems here:

- the decision to use / not-use s/w single step (architecture? target? user?
- the actual implementation of s/w single step

It would partially address the first problem.

Andrew