From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12587 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2003 18:20:47 -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 12571 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2003 18:20:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 2003 18:20:46 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E1B2B7F; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F465EFD.9020700@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:20:00 -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> <3F463CA9.5000900@redhat.com> <16198.21410.308896.588372@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00396.txt.bz2 >>>>>> "AC" == Andrew Cagney 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