Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 21:55, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi Hui,
>
>> 3.  Ping got some gdb_assert in sometime.  And I am not close to his
>> board.  So I didn't know what happen.  So I add following:
>> @@ -1534,7 +1535,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to con
>>        /* If STEP is set, it's a request to use hardware stepping
>>        facilities.  But in that case, we should never
>>        use singlestep breakpoint.  */
>> -      gdb_assert (!(singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
>> +      gdb_assert (!(execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD
>> +                    && singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
>>
>> The lost one still need be test.
>
> 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.

Best regards,
Hui