From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27418 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2003 14:32:07 -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 27385 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 14:32:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ngate.noida.hcltech.com) (202.54.110.230) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 14:32:05 -0000 Received: from exch-01.noida.hcltech.com (exch-01 [204.160.254.29]) by ngate.noida.hcltech.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hALF6Hwa016211; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:36:18 +0530 Received: by EXCH-01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:04:47 +0530 Message-ID: <1B3885BC15C7024C845AAC78314766C50103348D@EXCH-01> From: "Manoj Verma, Noida" To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Cc: Mark Salter Subject: RE: remote debugging packets Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:32:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Salter [mailto:msalter@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:56 PM > To: manojv@noida.hcltech.com > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com > Subject: Re: remote debugging packets > > > >>>>> Manoj Verma, Noida writes: > > > My question is, > > 1) I did the "step" only once but why there are three > packets (sometimes two > > packets) corresponding to the "step" ($s#73...Ack) as shown below in > > sanpshot-1, evenif the correct response is received for the > first packet. > > "step" is used to step past a line of source code. The $s packet tells > the target to step past a machine instruction. Apparently in > this case, > the source code line corresponds to three machine instructions. > This is fine. > > 2) On the Gdb client side when I continue, "(gdb) > continue", why it first > > sends a packet ($s#73...Ack) and then the packet > ($c#63...Ack) as shown > > below in sanpshot-2 ? It should only send the packet ($c#63...Ack). > > This is expected. GDB has to single-step past the one machine > instruction > before re-inserting any breakpoints and continuing. > But consider the scenario when I have breakpoints set on two consecutive lines. Will in this case also this behavior is justified? > --Mark >