Re: [RFA] Fix watchpoints when stepping over a breakpoint

Andrew Cagney
2002-04-19T01:34:59Z

> 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.

I suspect I need two bits of information: the stop signal and the
hardware registers. I didn't know the single-step bit would remain set.

I'll try to give it another go (but don't hold your breath :-)

Andrew