Re: [PATCH 0/2] Honour software single step in fallback of displaced stepping

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

> They actually are.  :-)  I tested v2 against x86 software single-step,
> and it caught issues like that.

Yeah, I realised that when I apply your V2 on top of my patches
later yesterday for the testing.  I tested your V2 only, and fails in 
gdb.threads/non-stop-fair-events.exp go away!

> This patch:
>
>  [PATCH v2 07/23] Embed the pending step-over chain in thread_info objects
>  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-04/msg00218.html
>
> splits that code you're touching to a separate "start_step_over_inferior"
> function.
>
> And then this patch:
>
>  [PATCH v2 11/23] Use keep_going in proceed and start_step_over too
>  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-04/msg00203.html
>
> rewrites that whole function to defer to keep_going instead.  keep_going
> already handles the case of the breakpoint disappearing
> (thread_still_needs_step_over
> returns false).  And in case the breakpoint is still around, it ends
> in 'resume' again, which is then the only place that knows
> how to start a displaced step.

OK, I'll read the corresponding patches then.

>
> I don't mind if you push your patch in first.  I'll just
> end up deleting that code again when I rebase it.

I'll let your patches go in.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)