From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30219 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2003 16:30:04 -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 30206 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2003 16:30:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2003 16:30:04 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IGU4K27819 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:30:04 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IGU4a01061 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:30:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-1.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1IGU3527370 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:30:03 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1IGTwt03643 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:29:58 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:30:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030218162957.ZM3642@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: ac131313@redhat.com (Andrew Cagney) "Re: Is stub support for the 's' packet optional or required?" (Feb 17, 9:04pm) References: <20030218020408.EE11C3CF2@localhost.redhat.com> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Is stub support for the 's' packet optional or required? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 On Feb 17, 9:04pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > If GDB implements software single step, then the `s' packet is never > used. Consequently, requiring the unconditional implementation of "s" > makes little sense. What about the situation where GDB implements software single step AND the stub implements the 's' packet? Shouldn't GDB at least attempt to see if the stub supports the 's' packet before deciding to never send it? [For remote MIPS/Linux targets, I've found some cases where GDB's implementation of software singlestep causes some undesirable behavior when doing the 'stepi' operation through some code that's hit by a number of threads. Yet, when software single step is implemented in the debug agent (and disabled in GDB), the debugging behavior is much more useful (and sensible).] Kevin