From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27369 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2008 13:53:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 27361 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2008 13:53:38 -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; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:53:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 3687 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2008 13:53:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Oct 2008 13:53:01 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Some ideas of displaced step function Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Michael Snyder , teawater References: <48E567FA.7010201@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <48E567FA.7010201@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810031453.16952.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On Friday 03 October 2008 01:31:54, Michael Snyder wrote: > Why are we using displaced-stepping when we're not async? s/async/non-stop mode/g. All-stop + async doesn't need it either. This feature was added for non-stop, as a way to avoid lifting breakpoints from the inferior when stepping over a breakpoint, otherwise, other running threads could miss them. No other reason to have it always on other than for more exposure, I guess. Time to pull the plug? I'd still like to have a way to enable displaced-stepping in all-stop mode, as it's very useful for testing. -- Pedro Alves