From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27565 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2007 15:22:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 27554 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2007 15:22:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:22:47 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IvaJE-0000c1-9z for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:19:12 +0000 Received: from 77.246.241.246 ([77.246.241.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:19:12 +0000 Received: from ghost by 77.246.241.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:19:12 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: RE: [RFA] Clarify infrun variable naming. Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <200711231623.04823.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <005c01c82de0$9400be20$bc023a60$@u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 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: 2007-11/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 Pierre Muller wrote: > > >> + If we hit a breakpoint or watchpoint, and then continue, >> + we need to single step the current thread with breakpoints >> + disabled, so that to avoid hitting the same breakpoint or >> + watchpoint again. And we should step just a single >> + thread and keep other threads stopped, so that >> + other threads don't miss breakpoints while they are removed. >> + >> + So, this variable simultaneously means that we need to single >> + step current thread, keep other threads stopped, and that >> + breakpoints should be removed while we step. > But this is the reason of the failure to catch watchpoints > that happen at the point where we are just stepping over a breakpoint, > because we step with the watchpoints disabled. > Why don't we enable all break- and watchpoints but the > ones that do have the same PC we are currently? Because that's extra work, and I haven't got around to that yet ;-) In case of watchpoints, you probably meant enabling all watchpoint at different data address, not PC? > Enabling at least all watchpoints would fix gdb/38 failure as > seen in gdb.base/watchpoint.exp where it is noted as a KFAIL. > > I tried to check this by adding a insert_watchpoint function > a few days ago, but if you are working on it anyhow, > and probably master this much better than I do, it would be > great to solve that issue at the same time. I plan to address this soon (but as a separate patch). - Volodya