From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18117 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2002 05:07:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18110 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2002 05:07:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2002 05:07:44 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA04006; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:06:15 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:07:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Andrew Cagney cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix watchpoints when stepping over a breakpoint In-Reply-To: <3CB9F964.4010409@cygnus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00527.txt.bz2 On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > As far as I can tell, the i386 backend can't locally differentiate > between a single step trap or a breakpoint trap. Really? I thought the single-step bit in EFLAGS should be set if we are stepping. In general, I'd love to see changes in GDB that would delegate more to the backend. I think GDB's application level tries to second-quess the target too much, which is hard without having all the target-dependent details. This is particularly true in the area that started this thread. GDB should request more information from the backend instead of trying to figure that out on its own, IMHO.