From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Orjan Friberg <orjan.friberg@axis.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: STEP_SKIPS_DELAY question, sort of
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:39:00 -0000
Message-id: <40B465E7.7050702@axis.com>
References: <40AE38D0.7010204@axis.com> <40AE659A.90207@gnu.org> <40B1BD1B.4090300@axis.com> <40B23BB2.6070001@gnu.org> <40B33399.3090803@axis.com> <40B3B742.50007@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00734.html

Andrew Cagney wrote:
Ok,

When given:

  N+0: branch foo
  N+2: nop
PC=N (or N+1)
SPC=N+2
would this result in a double single-step leaving PC==foo?  If it does 
then you've at least got STEP_SKIPS_DELAY like behavior.
Actually, both when PC=N (at the branch instruction) and when PC=N+1 (in 
the delay slot) a *single* single-step will leave us at PC==foo - the 
single-step exception fires after the instruction pointed out by SPC has 
been executed.

I'll go and have a closer look at STEP_SKIPS_DELAY.

--
Orjan Friberg
Axis Communications