From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-30331-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 28950 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2007 13:50:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 28896 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2007 13:50:26 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:50:22 +0000
Received: (qmail 25700 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2007 13:50:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 172.16.unknown.plus.ru) (vladimir@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 27 Nov 2007 13:50:20 -0000
From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>
Subject: Re: Questionable breakpoint stepping code
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:50:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com,  Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
References: <fi6m64$qav$1@ger.gmane.org> <200711262216.27906.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <1196104576.2501.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1196104576.2501.55.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200711271650.16182.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2


> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 22:16 +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 
> > > As for your last question, no, I don't believe we approve
> > > of ifdefs...
> > 
> > Well, the question, then is -- how do we make this code work
> > correctly even if the instruction at PC is not 4 bytes in size?
> > Calling disassembler seems a plausible approach.

On Monday 26 November 2007 22:16:16 Michael Snyder wrote:

> Good suggestion.

On Monday 26 November 2007 22:24:07 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> Don't Do It.  Just call error, I suggest.  Skipping an instruction
> can lead to bizarre failures later.

Ok, I'm now not quite sure what to do. I personally prefer calling 'error' --
is this going to be acceptable?

- Volodya