From: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
To: hoogerbrugge@hotmail.com
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Remote breakpoint problem
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030214163621.9443D78A6D@deneb.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F11600s5DrTRIFuEG1j0001db87@hotmail.com> (hoogerbrugge@hotmail.com)
>>>>> Jan Hoogerbrugge writes:
>> From: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
>> To: ac131313@redhat.com
>> >>>>> Andrew Cagney writes:
>>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I am porting gdb to a new target processor were remote debugging is
>> used. I have a problem with breakpoints. When I place a breakpoint on foo
>> followed by a continue I see the following communication between gdb and
>> the stub on the other side:
>> >>
>> >> - the instruction at foo is saved
>> >> - foo is replaced by a breakpoint instruction
>> >> - gdb sends a continue command
>> >> - the stub reports the breakpoint hit (signal = 5, pc = foo)
>> >> - gdb replaces the code at foo with the saved instruction
>> >> - gdb sends a step instruction command
>> >> - tbe stub reports again a breakpoint hit at foo (signal = 5, pc = foo)
>>
>> > Shouldn't this stop beyond foo?
>>
>> I wonder if the stub is flushing the icache after gdb puts the
>> saved instruction back...
> Caches are properly syncronisched. The respone of the remote target and its
> stub is correct as far as I can see. It is gdb that issues a continue
> command to the stub after hitting the breakpoint and single stepping the
> instruction on which teh breakpoint was placed.
But there is no breakpoint in place when gdb sends the step instruction.
>> >> - gdb replaces the code at foo with the saved instruction
>> >> - gdb sends a step instruction command
>> >> - tbe stub reports again a breakpoint hit at foo (signal = 5, pc = foo)
So, why did the stub report that it stopped at foo, rather than the
next instruction.
--Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-14 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-14 16:28 Jan Hoogerbrugge
2003-02-14 16:34 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-14 16:36 ` Mark Salter [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-14 12:30 Jan Hoogerbrugge
2003-02-14 14:19 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-02-14 14:26 ` Mark Salter
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=20030214163621.9443D78A6D@deneb.localdomain \
--to=msalter@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=hoogerbrugge@hotmail.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