From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113098 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2015 12:25:22 -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 113088 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2015 12:25:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pd0-f181.google.com Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-pd0-f181.google.com) (209.85.192.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:25:20 +0000 Received: by pdbfl12 with SMTP id fl12so33057493pdb.2 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 04:25:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.190.163 with SMTP id gr3mr28882014pac.117.1424780718783; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 04:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t13sm8091654pdj.58.2015.02.24.04.25.16 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Feb 2015 04:25:18 -0800 (PST) From: Yao Qi To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [pushed] gdbserver: redo stepping over breakpoint that was on top of a permanent breakpoint References: <1424723261-15719-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1424723261-15719-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:27:41 +0000") Message-ID: <86lhjnxzrs.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00689.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > + unsigned int increment_pc; > + > + if (the_low_target.breakpoint_len > the_low_target.decr_pc_after_b= reak) > + increment_pc =3D the_low_target.breakpoint_len; > + else > + increment_pc =3D the_low_target.decr_pc_after_break; AFAICS, the_low_target.breakpoint_len is greater or equal to the_low_target.decr_pc_after_break. Why don't we use .breakpoint_len instead? The code is correct, however, the comparison here leads me to think under what situation .breakpoint_len is less than .decr_pc_after_brea= k. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)