From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32596 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2002 06:24:58 -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 32517 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 06:24:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rj.sgi.com) (204.94.215.100) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 06:24:55 -0000 Received: from rock.csd.sgi.com (fddi-rock.csd.sgi.com [130.62.69.10]) by rj.sgi.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/linux-outbound_gateway-1.2) with ESMTP id g1D6Ontm005890; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:24:49 -0800 Received: from piet1.csd.sgi.com (piet1.csd.sgi.com [130.62.70.121]) by rock.csd.sgi.com (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA53566; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from piet@localhost) by piet1.csd.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id WAA39758; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:24:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:24:00 -0000 From: Piet/Pete Delaney To: Andrew Cagney Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Piet Delaney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: sid debugger interface extension: step out-of-range packet support Message-ID: <20020212222447.A25298@sgi.com> References: <20020212171421.D13536@redhat.com> <3C6A0365.4050207@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C6A0365.4050207@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 01:10:45AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Hi - > > > >A small amount of new code in sid/include and sid/component/gdb > >now allows gdb's "step out-of-range" packet ('e'/'E') to work with > >all sid-based simulator targets. This packet makes remote debugging > >potentially significantly faster, because it can replace a sequence of > >instruction single-step packets with just one new packet. This finally > >exercises J.T. Conklin's gdb-side extensions from roughly a year ago. > > > >There is a gdb bug that is exposed by this support. If a breakpoint > >placed on the current instruction, and another one on the next > >source line, then letting gdb "step" will stop at the next line, but > >won't let gdb realize that the second breakpoint was hit. (This is > >because gdb never inserted the breakpoints in gdb/infrun.c's proceed(), > >being unaware that remote_resume() meant something other than stepi.) > >This looks like this is a minor problem, but just in case, support for > >the packet may be forced off from the gdb side and/or from the sid side. > > > Just to be clear. I wouldn't rely to much on that current packet and/or > implementation. A number of issues with it have been pointed out with > it. Suggest looking through the archives. I found Frank more clear. -piet