From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11350 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2008 19:01:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 11340 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2008 19:01:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:01:32 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([80.230.158.193]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0JZ600FIZDHSW2X0@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:15:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:03:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Stepping off breakpoints in non-stop debugging mode (resubmit) In-reply-to: <200804111646.54575.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <200804100003.05361.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200804111422.39494.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200804111646.54575.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: 2008-04/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:46:54 +0100 > > A Friday 11 April 2008 15:31:26, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Thanks, the documentation patch is okay with me, but please enclose > > the first instance of "displaced stepping" in @dfn{}, as we do with > > new terms we introduce. > > I've added it like so, hope that's what you mean: > > +@kindex maint set can-use-displaced-stepping > +@kindex maint show can-use-displaced-stepping > +@cindex displaced stepping support > +@item maint set can-use-displaced-stepping > +@itemx maint show can-use-displaced-stepping > +Control whether or not @value{GDBN} will do displaced stepping if the > +target supports it. The default is on. @dfn{Displaced stepping} is a > +way to single-step over breakpoints without removing them from the > +inferior, by executing an out-of-line copy of the instruction that was > +originally at the breakpoint location. It is also known as > +out-of-line single-stepping. That's okay, thanks.