From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9155 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2014 12:52:30 -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 9145 invoked by uid 89); 28 Sep 2014 12:52:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:52:28 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-02x.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206] helo=SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XYDxg-00021t-Q2 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 05:52:24 -0700 Received: from GreenOnly (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 05:52:23 -0700 From: Yao Qi To: Pedro Alves CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info References: <1411691982-10744-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1411691982-10744-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1411691982-10744-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:39:34 +0100") Message-ID: <87fvfbx65x.fsf@codesourcery.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: 2014-09/txt/msg00807.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > gdb/ > 2014-09-22 Pedro Alves > > * infrun.c (step_over_info_valid_p): New function. > (resume): Use step_over_info_valid_p instead of checking the > threads's trap_expected flag. Add debug output. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't see any debug output added by the code. Maybe a staled changelog e= ntry? > +/* Returns true if step-over info is valid. */ > + > +static int > +step_over_info_valid_p (void) > +{ > + return (step_over_info.aspace !=3D NULL); > +} > + How about replace "step_over_info.aspace !=3D NULL" in stepping_past_instruction_at with step_over_info_valid_p too? > /* Advise target which signals may be handled silently. If we have > - removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one (which can > - happen only if we are not using displaced stepping), we need to > + removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one, we need to > receive all signals to avoid accidentally skipping a breakpoint > during execution of a signal handler. */ > - if ((step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p) > - && tp->control.trap_expected > - && !use_displaced_stepping (gdbarch)) > + if (step_over_info_valid_p ()) Why do we remove condition (step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)? I understand that step_over_info_valid_p is equivalent to "tp->control.trap_expected && !use_displaced_stepping (gdbarch)", so I don't know why (step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p) is removed too. > target_pass_signals (0, NULL); > else > target_pass_signals ((int) GDB_SIGNAL_LAST, signal_pass); --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)