Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole.

Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-04-12T12:15:37Z

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:09:24AM -0300, Luis Machado wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> Thanks for your reply. The syntax problem was corrected.
>
> I've ran the gdb_mbuild.sh script and had no problems that are directly
> related to my patch. I had a compilation problem with the spu-elf, but
> that seems to be in cvs-HEAD as well. I also changed the return type of
> the software single step method for spu-elf and the local return values
> from the method ("return" to "return 1"), since they were still void.

This version is basically OK.

> 2007-04-12 Luis Machado <luisgpm@br.ibm.com>
>
> * gdbarch.sh: Change the return type of software_single_step from
> void to int and reformatted some comments to <= 80 columns.

* gdbarch.sh (software_single_step): Change the return type
from void to int and reformatted some comments to <= 80
columns.

> * alpha-tdep.c (alpha_software_single_step): Change the return type
> from void to int and always return 1.
> * alpha-tdep.h: Change the return type of alpha_software_single_step
> from void to int.
> * arm-tdep.c (arm_software_single_step): Change the return type from
> void to int and always return 1.

* alpha-tdep.h (alpha_software_single_step): Likewise.
* arm-tdep.c (arm_software_single_step): Likewise.

... et cetera. No need to repeat.

> infrun.c (resume): Check the return value from SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP
> and act accordingly. True means that the software_single_step
> breakpoints where inserted; false means they where not.

* infrun.c (resume): Check the return value from
SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP and act accordingly.

Note, part of this explanatory comment vanished because we don't put
"why" in ChangeLogs. This is the sort of thing that one ought to know
when working with the code. Therefore it should be a comment in the
code. Please describe the return value in gdbarch.sh.

Thanks!

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery