From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29830 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2004 12:42:12 -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 29603 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2004 12:41:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO miranda.se.axis.com) (212.209.10.220) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Jun 2004 12:41:59 -0000 Received: from axis.com (ironmadien.se.axis.com [10.84.130.1]) by miranda.se.axis.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5local0.1) with ESMTP id i57CfqdB028774; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:41:52 +0200 Message-ID: <40C46290.9000402@axis.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:42:00 -0000 From: Orjan Friberg Organization: Axis Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: STEP_SKIPS_DELAY question, sort of 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> <40B465E7.7050702@axis.com> <40C45B95.9050309@axis.com> In-Reply-To: <40C45B95.9050309@axis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2 Orjan Friberg wrote: > > I tried implementing a fix in handle_inferior_event (the MIPS fix is in > proceed). It seemed easier to step one more time when we find out that > we need to, rather than to determine beforehand that we're going to have > to step twice (and I couldn't determine how to pass that information). > > The concept patch below illustrates what I'm trying to do; by setting > another_trap in the execution control state, by the time we get to > keep_going we won't insert the breakpoint and we'll instead continue > single-stepping. Comments? Is this the right approach at all? Gah. Please ignore the previous patch (and sorry); what I posted only works when doing a continue when stopped at the branch instruction. Doing a step (which leaves us in the delay slot) followed by another step (or continue for that matter) prematurely inserts the breakpoint. -- Orjan Friberg Axis Communications