Re: MI: reporting of multiple breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:06:58AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> The exception happens right when the store is written, and we find the
> PC to be after the faulting instruction, when the inferior stops.  The
> faulting instruction is the one that corresponds to the previous PC
> value.

Yes.  On x86 it's possible to deduce the "previous PC value" but that's
not always the case.

> > > Again, the place that caused the store is known (and shown to the
> > > user), but the place where the inferior is stopped is a different
> > > place on many architectures, including x86.  Wed are arguing about the
> > > latter, not the former.
> > 
> > Could you give me an example?
> 
> What should the example show?

Us showing "the place that caused the store" to the user.  I don't
think we do this or have ever done this.

> > I think that is desirable, but not at all what we do today - I have
> > no idea how to retrieve the address of the store when I stop at a
> > watchpoint.  We show the old and new value, but that's it.
> 
> We also show the current source line, don't we?  Are you saying that
> we show the wrong line?

We show the old value, the new value, and the source line containing
$pc, but not the location of the store.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery