From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24274 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2008 08:46:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24205 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2008 08:46:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout5.012.net.il (HELO mtaout5.012.net.il) (84.95.2.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:46:38 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([80.230.158.193]) by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0JZ500K7CL05FCF4@i_mtaout5.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:00:06 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:15:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Stepping off breakpoints in non-stop debugging mode (resubmit) In-reply-to: <200804102309.52584.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> <200804101149.35438.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200804102309.52584.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/msg00214.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:09:52 +0100 > > A Thursday 10 April 2008 21:00:04, Eli Zaretskii escreveu: > > > From: Pedro Alves > > > Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:49:35 +0100 > > > > > > How about this? > > > > > > @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. 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 under > > > the breakpoint. It is also known as out-of-line single-stepping. > > > > This is okay, but instead of ``under the breakpoint'' I'd suggest to > > say ``at the breakpoint location''. > > > > Not sure about that. There seems to be an ambiguity with the > word "location", because depending on how you parse it, it can sound > that's where the copy is being executed. Is it just me? Then how about ``by executing an out-of-line copy of the instruction that was originally at the breakpoint location''?