From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3895 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2008 02:59:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 3887 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2008 02:59:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:58:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2556625E409; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gGXh+12YcaT7; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9E725E408; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C1782E7ACD; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Turn software singlestep off? Message-ID: <20080624025854.GA4484@adacore.com> References: <1214275796.3601.1193.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1214275796.3601.1193.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 > I thought there used to be, but now I can't find it. I don't think there is such a switch either. I don't think it would be very hard to implement, though... And it could actually be useful on architectures such as Tru64 (I think) where we enable SW single step because the kernel stepping doesn't work for threaded program. Such a switch would probably give the user a chance to have better performance when debugging a program that doesn't use threads... It would be a pretty geeky switch, though, and I would be ready to bet that the number of people knowing about it would remain very small. -- Joel