From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21905 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2012 17:04:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 21892 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2012 17:04:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qARH49eE002091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:04:11 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qARGKDhY020996; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:20:14 -0500 Message-ID: <50B4E83D.9010507@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:04:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support targets that know how to step over breakpoints References: <506D859E.9050600@codesourcery.com> <507E99BB.8050105@codesourcery.com> <508FB2B6.6040006@codesourcery.com> <50B4DA35.3010206@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <50B4DA35.3010206@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00757.txt.bz2 On 11/27/2012 03:20 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > Meanwhile i've updated this patch for the latest cvs head. > > I'm wondering if the patch is too ugly for someone to take a look at it or if it is too odd a feature to add. I suppose not. > > Hopefully i can get some traction with this new refreshed and shiny version! :-) I was hoping others could comment. :-) Last we discussed this (probably a years ago already), I expressed my concern with upstreaming this as is. It's that this works by sending a regular step command to the target, and then the target steps over any breakpoint that may be at the current PC. If GDB is wanting to move past a breakpoint, this still needs to do: -> vCont;s <- T05 (step finished) <- vCont;c An alternative would be to get rid of that T05, by defining new commands that tell the target to step-over-breakpoint, or continue-over-breakpoint (and signal variants). E.g., sbc to mean step-break-continue: -> vCont;spc That'd move past the breakpoint without causing a stop immediately. Guess I need to convince myself the current design is good enough. Comments? -- Pedro Alves