Re: GDB stub question?

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-04-26T14:08:30Z

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:03:02AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> 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?

It's not optional, really. GDB's configuration determines whether it
will be used or not. And he's already using it, as far as I can tell.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery