From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5506 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2004 12:09:34 -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 5482 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2004 12:09:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO miranda.se.axis.com) (193.13.178.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Jun 2004 12:09:32 -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 i5EC7LdB008731; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:07:21 +0200 Message-ID: <40CD94F2.8050901@axis.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:09:00 -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> <40C46290.9000402@axis.com> <40C46919.2060802@axis.com> <40C484FE.5080702@gnu.org> <40C6DCF9.2060700@axis.com> <40C73411.9060708@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <40C73411.9060708@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 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