Re: Instrcutions that must not be stepped.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:23:51PM -0700, PAUL GILLIAM wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 16:17 -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> > >>>>> "PAUL" == PAUL GILLIAM <pgilliam@us.ibm.com> writes:
> > 
> >  >> 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.
> > 
> >  PAUL> This would be cool.  It would be nice to be able to tell if the
> >  PAUL> kernel has support for this and let it handle atomic sequences
> >  PAUL> if it does.  Let GDB handle it if the kernel doesn't.
> > 
> > Similarly, in remote debugging, there should be a way to have the stub
> > handle it.  That means you may need some extensions to the stub
> > protocol to encode some new information...
> 
> Perhaps something in "qSupported" stuff Danial Jacobowitz is working on?

No, that's unrelated.  I think all you'll want is "step out of range"
on the GDB side, and let the stub handle everything else.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery