From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5082 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2010 07:29:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 5071 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2010 07:29:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pv0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-pv0-f169.google.com) (74.125.83.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:29:01 +0000 Received: by pvg16 with SMTP id 16so2084222pvg.0 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.1.21 with SMTP id 21mr2299119wfa.173.1277018940172; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:29:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.32.8 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 00:28:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201006111455.36401.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <201006111455.36401.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record To: Pedro Alves Cc: ping huang , shuchang zhou , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder , paawan oza , Tom Tromey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00436.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 21:55, Pedro Alves wrote: > Hi Hui, > >> 3. =A0Ping got some gdb_assert in sometime. =A0And I am not close to his >> board. =A0So I didn't know what happen. =A0So I add following: >> @@ -1534,7 +1535,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to con >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0/* If STEP is set, it's a request to use hardware stepping >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0facilities. =A0But in that case, we should never >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0use singlestep breakpoint. =A0*/ >> - =A0 =A0 =A0gdb_assert (!(singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step)); >> + =A0 =A0 =A0gdb_assert (!(execution_direction =3D=3D EXEC_FORWARD >> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0&& singlestep_breakpoints_inser= ted_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. =A0If going backwards, the assertion always ends up > evaled as true, nomatter if sofware single-steps are inserted > or not, or whether `step' is set. =A0Did you mean to assert > that when going backwards, there shouldn't ever be software > single-step breakpoints inserted? > > This patch is okay otherwise. =A0Thanks. > > -- 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