From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43328 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2016 16:46:29 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 43318 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2016 16:46:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1271 X-HELO: usplmg21.ericsson.net Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (HELO usplmg21.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:46:27 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2A.A7.02571.FF608C75; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:46:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elxa4wqvvz1 (147.117.188.8) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:46:23 -0400 References: <20160831171406.24057-1-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <20160831171406.24057-2-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <3fdb7193-60c7-49c9-ccf5-bc040aa157ea@redhat.com> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 24.5.50.1 From: Antoine Tremblay To: Pedro Alves CC: Antoine Tremblay , Yao Qi , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable range stepping for ARM on GDBServer In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > On 09/01/2016 04:21 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote: >> >> Pedro Alves writes: >> >>> On 08/31/2016 08:14 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote: >>> >>>> I'm sorry I can't be more helpful at the moment but I wanted to post >>>> this issue before I have to leave for a while. >>> >>> Understood. Does enabling range stepping unblock something else? >> >> It would unblock ARM tracepoints, as per Yao's requirements... > > Tracepoints make gdbserver single-step and then not report the event > to gdb, so I do see the parallel with range-stepping. Throwing > while-stepping into the equation would make it even more clear. > > But maybe we can paralyze? If enabling tracepoints without range > stepping causes no known regression, but enabling range stepping with > no tracepoints causes regressions, seems to me like we could put > tracepoints in first, and fix whatever range stepping problems > in parallel. > I would totally agree with that. (tracepoints do not cause any regressions without range stepping) Yao ? > Skipping the test sounds far from ideal to me, since the test has a > tendency of catching problems. Witness patch 1/2 in this very > series, for example... Indeed. Thanks, Antoine