From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12151 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2006 14:03:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 12140 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2006 14:03:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (HELO sadr.equallogic.com) (66.155.203.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:03:07 +0000 Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3QE34kq029472 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:03:05 -0400 Received: from M31.equallogic.com (M31.equallogic.com [172.16.1.31]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id k3QE343L029467; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:03:04 -0400 Received: from pkoning.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.169]) by M31.equallogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:03:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17487.32150.716304.944358@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:08:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: drow@false.org Cc: inderpreetb@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB stub question? References: <1145862112.7595.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060424121630.GA19787@nevyn.them.org> <20060424123222.GA20402@nevyn.them.org> <20060426123642.GA18007@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta23) "daikon" XEmacs Lucid X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: >> Is there any way we could revert back to the old way (i.e) - set >> breakpoint at the next address - continue - remove breakpoint. Daniel> GDB has never done this to implement source single stepping, Daniel> so I don't know what you want. You can't predict the next Daniel> address that far ahead; what if the current line contains a Daniel> branch? Isn't there a "target side single step" optional packet -- so if the stub supports that then gdb can just say "stepi" rather than the more laborious process of setting one or two breakpoints and doing a continue? Daniel> You might want to look at the T packet response if you aren't Daniel> already using it; supplying a few registers there can make Daniel> stepping much faster. I did that with our MIPS target -- yes it helps a lot. I think you need SP and (if relevant on the target) FP, and maybe PC. A good way to tell whether it's right is to see if gdb still asks for registers after it gets the T packet. If yes, then one of the registers it wanted immediately wasn't in the T packet. paul