Re: Is stub support for the 's' packet optional or required?

[Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>]

On Feb 18,  3:23pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> That's a bug in software single step handling; I bet it shows up now
> too, just less often (because of latency changes).  I think it's as
> simple as marking the single-step breakpoint thread-specific in the
> normal way, but it might be a little more complicated...

One of the problems with the single-step breakpoint machinery is that
it doesn't use the mechanisms in breakpoint.c, so it can't be marked
in the normal way (or in any way).  I'm presently looking at
introducing a new breakpoint type for software single step.  Once
that's done, I'm hoping that we can do as you suggest without having
to move the location of the SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP invocations.

The location of the invocations of SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP() may make
this hard to do though.  It is invoked to insert its breakpoint long
after breakpoints have been inserted.  Likewise, when removing
breakpoints, this happens much earlier than normal breakpoints are
removed.

Kevin