Re: Is stub support for the 's' packet optional or required?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 09:29:58AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Feb 17,  9:04pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > If GDB implements software single step, then the `s' packet is never
> > used.  Consequently, requiring the unconditional implementation of "s"
> > makes little sense.
> 
> What about the situation where GDB implements software single step AND
> the stub implements the 's' packet?  Shouldn't GDB at least attempt to
> see if the stub supports the 's' packet before deciding to never send
> it?

In my humble opinion, SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP should affect native code
and not remote; I'm much too intimidated by the stop and resume logic
to actually change it myself, though.  If there were less global state
around infrun this might be easier.

> [For remote MIPS/Linux targets, I've found some cases where GDB's
> implementation of software singlestep causes some undesirable behavior
> when doing the 'stepi' operation through some code that's hit by a number
> of threads.  Yet, when software single step is implemented in the debug
> agent (and disabled in GDB), the debugging behavior is much more useful
> (and sensible).]

Is it just slow, or do different things actually happen?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer