Re: [PATCH] gdb: rename gdbarch_software_single_step -> gdbarch_get_next_pcs

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>]

On 8/18/25 7:24 PM, Luis wrote:
> On 8/16/25 04:09, Kevin Buettner wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:14:17 -0400
>> Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
>>> To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>> Cc: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gdb: rename gdbarch_software_single_step ->
>>> gdbarch_get_next_pcs Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:14:17 -0400
>>>
>>> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
>>>
>>> I spotted this while reviewing a patch adding a new
>>> gdbarch_software_single_step implementation.  I find the name
>>> "software_single_step" a bit misleading or unclear.  It makes it sounds
>>> as if the function executed a single step.  In reality, this function
>>> returns the possible next PCs for current instructions.
>>>
>>> We have a similar concept in GDBserver:
>>> linux_process_target::low_get_next_pcs.  I like that name, it's clear
>>> and straight to the point.
>>>
>>> Rename gdbarch_software_single_step to gdbarch_get_next_pcs.  I find
>>> this name more indicative of what happens.
>>>
>>> There is some code for ARM shared between GDB and GDBserver to implement
>>> both sides, also called "get next pcs", so I think it all fits well
>>> together.
>>>
>>> Tested by rebuilding.
>>
>> This one makes sense to me too.
>>
>> Approved-by: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
>>
> 
> Agreed. The naming has confused me in the past as well.

Thanks, it's nice to have two opinions that confirm my feeling.  I
translated your (Luis') acknowledgement to an Acked-by and pushed the
patch.

Simon