From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30758 invoked by alias); 16 May 2003 19:24:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30722 invoked from network); 16 May 2003 19:24:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 May 2003 19:24:16 -0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22010; Fri, 16 May 2003 15:20:37 -0400 Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA13138; Fri, 16 May 2003 15:24:14 -0400 Message-ID: <075801c31be0$c5d0de10$0202040a@catdog> From: "Kris Warkentin" To: "Quality Quorum" Cc: "Gdb@Sources.Redhat.Com" References: Subject: Re: (remote) hellishly slow single stepping over library calls Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:24:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 > > Would this problem also exist with the normal remote protocol? (stupid > > users...clicking step instead of next....;-) > > What about using the T-format with a value of PC to report status, instead > of using the S-format, for the purpose. We're not using gdb's remote protocol but rather our own. I see from remote.c though that T-format is just an expedited reply with just a signal and the appropriate registers. I'm assuming that each target would be in charge of knowing what it needs to put in these replies and when to use them. I'll look into implementing that sort of thing on our end. Thanks, Kris