From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>,
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>,
Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Is stub support for the 's' packet optional or required?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030218214337.ZM4871@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> "Re: Is stub support for the 's' packet optional or required?" (Feb 18, 4:07pm)
On Feb 18, 4:07pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> # FIXME/cagney/2001-01-18: This should be split in two. A target method
> that indicates if the target needs software single step. An ISA method
> to implement it.
This one puzzles me. How can gdb find out if a target (e.g. remote stub)
can single step without first attempting the operation?
> # FIXME/cagney/2001-01-18: This should be replaced with something that
> inserts breakpoints using the breakpoint system instead of blatting
> memory directly (as with rs6000).
I agree with this and am looking into doing it.
> # FIXME/cagney/2001-01-18: The logic is backwards. It should be asking
> if the target can single step. If not, then implement single step using
> breakpoints.
It seems to me that this could be rolled into the first comment, above.
> (All taken with a grain of salt.)
After (re)reading these comments, I came up with a different strategy
(which I'm presently rethinking). Instead of asking the target if
it can single step, it might be better to push the SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP
invocation down to the bottom-most target resume() (i.e, child_resume()
for many natives). At the moment, it's in resume() in infrun.c.
(There is also a call which removes the breakpoints, but, presumably
if we get things using the breakpoint system, this can be replaced
with something better.)
As I said, I'm presently rethinking this. The first step is to figure
out how to make software single step properly use the breakpoint
machinery.
> >> [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).]
> >
> >
> > Is it just slow, or do different things actually happen?
>
> It is just very slow.
I was actually seeing different behavior.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-18 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-17 23:50 Kevin Buettner
2003-02-18 2:39 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-02-18 16:30 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-02-18 16:51 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-18 20:06 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-02-18 20:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-18 20:42 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-02-18 21:03 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-02-18 21:43 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2003-02-18 23:43 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1030218214337.ZM4871@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox