From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22413 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 13:03:13 -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 22348 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 13:03:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 13:03:07 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DRV98-00059g-Eq; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:03:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Decker, Paul" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: implementing stepi Message-ID: <20050429130305.GA19766@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Decker, Paul" , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00214.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:49:28AM -0400, Decker, Paul wrote: > > > hello everyone, > > I have what I believe is a simple question on the implementation of the > stepi feature. Some processors provide a mechanism to step exactly one > instruction, such as a special bit in a debug control register. While > other processors don't provide this capability, and to implement a step, > breakpoints must be sprinkled in various places, and a run (to the > breakpoint) performed. Looking at some of the gdb source, it seems > that stepi is implemented using the breakpoint method. In doing a port > to my custom processor, is it considered ok to use the hardware method > if available? No, stepi is implemented in both ways depending on the features of the target processor. This is why target_resume takes a "step" argument. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC