Re: Instrcutions that must not be stepped.

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> From: PAUL GILLIAM <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:26:01 -0700
> 
> On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 16:54 -0700, PAUL GILLIAM wrote:
> > I propose changing the meaning of SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P () from "This
> > arch has no hardware to do single step and must use software." to "There
> > may be circumstances where this arch will have to do single stepping
> > with out hardware support." And make SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP return 1 if a
> > software single step was needed and 0 if it was not.  This would require
> > a minor change for those arches currently using SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP and
> > a little tweeking in "infrun.c".
> > 
> > The only difference between doing a software single step as it is now
> > and doing an "atomic single step" is how the decision of where to place
> > temporary breakpoints is made.
> 
> I have attached two diff's: "change_software_single_step.diff" makes the
> change I proposed above.

No you didn't :(.

> I changed the name "software_single_step" to
> "possibly_single_step_with_software".

Hmm, I don't really see the benefit of renaming the function.  I mean,
that name is kinda long, and it means we get the evn longer:

  set_gdbarch_possibly_single_step_with_software().

By the way, if stepping these atomic sequences proves to be a
performance problem, you might want to consider implementing stepping
them in the (Linux) kernel.

Mark