From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21740 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2008 16:01:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 21731 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Oct 2008 16:01:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.186) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:00:56 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so362838tib.12 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.43.20 with SMTP id q20mr3195490tiq.15.1224259253612; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.42.9 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:01:00 -0000 From: teawater To: "Pedro Alves" Subject: Re: [RFA] Displaced stepping just enable in non-stop mode Cc: "Michael Snyder" , "Eli Zaretskii" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com In-Reply-To: <200810171548.12752.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081016183217.GA27176@caradoc.them.org> <48F7AEF2.4050405@vmware.com> <200810171548.12752.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 P record can support displaced stepping but it don't support non-step. So we remove this code. On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 22:48, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Thursday 16 October 2008 22:15:30, Michael Snyder wrote: >> What it looks like is that you try to write to memory >> that's write-protected. >> >> This is because most replay targets will treat all of memory >> as write-protected when they are in replay mode. >> >> Where this usually manifests is, you'll say "continue" >> (probably for the first time since attaching to the target), >> and it'll croak because it's trying to step over some >> "invisible" breakpoint such as the one that handles >> shared libraries. > > I see, then this means that all the reverse targets in existance > implement inserting breakpoints (target_insert_breakpoint, Z packet), > instead of relying on memory breakpoints. Ah, the record target > just ignores breakpoint insertions, and relies on forcing single-stepping > and checking breakpoint hits itself. > > -- > Pedro Alves >