Re: STEP_SKIPS_DELAY question, sort of

[Orjan Friberg <orjan.friberg@axis.com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> If the:
>  >>   breakpoint_here_p (read_pc () - 2)
> and
>  >>   breakpoint_here_p (read_pc () + 4)
> logic is moved to the per-architecture STEP_SKIPS_DELAY I don't think 
> DELAY_SIZE is needed.
> 
> I also think this needs a new macro name that better reflects what the 
> test is doing.  But I've no good ideas :-/ (SINGLE_STEP_THROUGH_DELAY 
> (pc)?)

SINGLE_STEP_THROUGH_DELAY sounds fine to me.

> Can a simple, separate, more explicit logic like:
>     if (we just did a step and STEP_SKIPS_DELAY (pc))
>       set up for another step
>       return;
> work?  The [handle_inferior_event patch snipped] was nested within other 
> logic and that's not good from a readability / maintainability point of 
> view.

Agreed; it wasn't clear from the context where I put the patch why it was there. 
  I'll come back with a proper patch once I've gotten around to do some more 
serious testing.

-- 
Orjan Friberg
Axis Communications