From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: ping huang <harderock@gmail.com>,
shuchang zhou <shuchang.zhou@gmail.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>,
paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com>,
Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:58:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTil0a5R4W3fZEjrzQJlLoj0sv4SVJ1-EnQDBQejG@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201006221112.56408.pedro@codesourcery.com>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 18:12, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi Hui,
>
> On Sunday 20 June 2010 08:28:40, Hui Zhu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 21:55, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> > I'm felling a bit dense, and I don't see what is that actually
>> > catching. If going backwards, the assertion always ends up
>> > evaled as true, nomatter if sofware single-steps are inserted
>> > or not, or whether `step' is set. Did you mean to assert
>> > that when going backwards, there shouldn't ever be software
>> > single-step breakpoints inserted?
>> >
>> > This patch is okay otherwise. Thanks.
>>
>> Thanks Pedro.
>> I was also confused by this issue too. I thought it will never happen
>> too. But Ping said he got this issue. And I didn't have the risc
>> board to test. So I gived up and put this patch to him.
>>
>> So I think this patch is not very hurry to checked in until some one
>> post a risc prec support patch. At that time, I will make this issue
>> clear.
>
> I'd be fine with putting the patch in now, but without the change to
> that gdb_assert. It looked like a step in the right direction,
> and we can fix any left issues later.
>
> --
> Pedro Alves
>
Agree with you.
I delay this patch some days because I want make it check in after 7.2.
Now, following patch checked in.
Thanks,
Hui
2010-07-19 Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
* breakpoint.c (single_step_breakpoints_inserted): New
function.
* breakpoint.h (single_step_breakpoints_inserted): Extern.
* infrun.c (maybe_software_singlestep): Add check code.
* record.c (record_resume): Add code for software single step.
(record_wait): Ditto.
---
breakpoint.c | 10 +++++++++
breakpoint.h | 1
infrun.c | 3 +-
record.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
4 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/breakpoint.c
+++ b/breakpoint.c
@@ -10468,6 +10468,16 @@ insert_single_step_breakpoint (struct gd
paddress (gdbarch, next_pc));
}
+/* Check if the breakpoints used for software single stepping
+ were inserted or not. */
+
+int
+single_step_breakpoints_inserted (void)
+{
+ return (single_step_breakpoints[0] != NULL
+ || single_step_breakpoints[1] != NULL);
+}
+
/* Remove and delete any breakpoints used for software single step. */
void
--- a/breakpoint.h
+++ b/breakpoint.h
@@ -984,6 +984,7 @@ extern int remove_hw_watchpoints (void);
twice before remove is called. */
extern void insert_single_step_breakpoint (struct gdbarch *,
struct address_space *, CORE_ADDR);
+extern int single_step_breakpoints_inserted (void);
extern void remove_single_step_breakpoints (void);
/* Manage manual breakpoints, separate from the normal chain of
--- a/infrun.c
+++ b/infrun.c
@@ -1515,7 +1515,8 @@ maybe_software_singlestep (struct gdbarc
{
int hw_step = 1;
- if (gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch)
+ if (execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD
+ && gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch)
&& gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch, get_current_frame ()))
{
hw_step = 0;
--- a/record.c
+++ b/record.c
@@ -1011,9 +1011,43 @@ record_resume (struct target_ops *ops, p
if (!RECORD_IS_REPLAY)
{
+ struct gdbarch *gdbarch = target_thread_architecture (ptid);
+
record_message (get_current_regcache (), signal);
- record_beneath_to_resume (record_beneath_to_resume_ops, ptid, 1,
- signal);
+
+ if (!step)
+ {
+ /* This is not hard single step. */
+ if (!gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))
+ {
+ /* This is a normal continue. */
+ step = 1;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* This arch support soft sigle step. */
+ if (single_step_breakpoints_inserted ())
+ {
+ /* This is a soft single step. */
+ record_resume_step = 1;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* This is a continue.
+ Try to insert a soft single step breakpoint. */
+ if (!gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch,
+ get_current_frame ()))
+ {
+ /* This system don't want use soft single step.
+ Use hard sigle step. */
+ step = 1;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ record_beneath_to_resume (record_beneath_to_resume_ops,
+ ptid, step, signal);
}
}
@@ -1089,12 +1123,16 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
/* This is not a single step. */
ptid_t ret;
CORE_ADDR tmp_pc;
+ struct gdbarch *gdbarch = target_thread_architecture (inferior_ptid);
while (1)
{
ret = record_beneath_to_wait (record_beneath_to_wait_ops,
ptid, status, options);
+ if (single_step_breakpoints_inserted ())
+ remove_single_step_breakpoints ();
+
if (record_resume_step)
return ret;
@@ -1134,8 +1172,12 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
}
else
{
- /* This must be a single-step trap. Record the
- insn and issue another step. */
+ /* This is a single-step trap. Record the
+ insn and issue another step.
+ FIXME: this part can be a random SIGTRAP too.
+ But GDB cannot handle it. */
+ int step = 1;
+
if (!record_message_wrapper_safe (regcache,
TARGET_SIGNAL_0))
{
@@ -1144,8 +1186,20 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
break;
}
+ if (gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))
+ {
+ /* Try to insert the software single step breakpoint.
+ If insert success, set step to 0. */
+ set_executing (inferior_ptid, 0);
+ reinit_frame_cache ();
+ if (gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch,
+
get_current_frame ()))
+ step = 0;
+ set_executing (inferior_ptid, 1);
+ }
+
record_beneath_to_resume (record_beneath_to_resume_ops,
- ptid, 1,
+ ptid, step,
TARGET_SIGNAL_0);
continue;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-19 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-18 8:21 Hui Zhu
2009-12-18 19:37 ` Michael Snyder
2009-12-20 13:48 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-12-23 6:38 ` Hui Zhu
2009-12-23 6:52 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-12-23 9:24 ` Hui Zhu
[not found] ` <8d62b6fe0912231751p1202294cw83430e8d53af0951@mail.gmail.com>
2009-12-24 1:54 ` Fwd: " shuchang zhou
2009-12-24 17:38 ` Pedro Alves
2010-01-04 14:23 ` Hui Zhu
2010-01-08 16:24 ` Pedro Alves
2010-05-25 5:14 ` Hui Zhu
2010-05-27 6:51 ` Hui Zhu
2010-06-11 13:55 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-20 7:29 ` Hui Zhu
2010-06-22 10:13 ` Pedro Alves
2010-07-19 7:58 ` Hui Zhu [this message]
2009-12-22 18:23 ` Tom Tromey
2009-12-23 3:09 ` Hui Zhu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AANLkTil0a5R4W3fZEjrzQJlLoj0sv4SVJ1-EnQDBQejG@mail.gmail.com \
--to=teawater@gmail.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=harderock@gmail.com \
--cc=msnyder@vmware.com \
--cc=paawan1982@yahoo.com \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=shuchang.zhou@gmail.com \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox