From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7322 invoked by alias); 15 May 2013 08:07:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7301 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2013 08:07:35 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:07:08 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UcWjp-0006uz-Oo from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:07:05 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 15 May 2013 01:07:05 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:07:04 -0700 Message-ID: <51934234.9090707@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 08:07:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] range stepping: gdb References: <1363006291-13334-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1363006291-13334-5-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <51928303.3050407@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51928303.3050407@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00507.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2013 02:31 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > This is problematic. It's better to_not_ have target itself decide > when to range step or to single step, and peeking at "infrun-owned" > variables. For example, with software watchpoints, GDB needs to have control > of single-steps, in order to evaluate the watchpoints at after each > instruction is executed, so trap_expected isn't enough. (My v3 adds a test for > that, that v2 fails.) I didn't take software watchpoint into account in V2, so probably some problems there. > I dislike the design of using PC checks here too :-/. That > seems fragile, and potentially inefficient (considering GDB ever > sending more than one range action per packet, that might end up > fetching registers for threads unnecessarily). IMO, it's better to have Sorry, I don't understand why it is inefficient. -- Yao (齐尧)