From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3666 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2009 09:22:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 3657 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2009 09:22:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:22:05 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n139Lxaj006382; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:21:59 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n139LxbJ012722; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:21:59 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200902030921.n139LxbJ012722@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20090202214915.GA4257@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:49:15 -0500) Subject: Re: i386 int3 handling, running vs stepping References: <20090201231819.A9FB61C7A19@localhost> <20090201233251.GA27142@caradoc.them.org> <20090202042459.GA10080@caradoc.them.org> <20090202214915.GA4257@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:49:15 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > I guess the issue is whether int3's in programs are supported by gdb, > > and by supported I mean users can rely on gdb flagging a SIGTRAP when > > they're executed. As you say, there are people who take advantage of > > this for hardwired breakpoints. > > Since it works today, and we know that people use it, I think we have > no choice but to consider it supported. > > > There are various situations where gdb itself will singlestep code > > (e.g., "step", "next", s/w watchpoints). Can users expect to see the > > SIGTRAP in these situations (and all others)? And if the program is > > being run by a script, can the script expect to see the SIGTRAP in all > > cases? > > That's certainly not the case today. If you want to make it work, and > add a couple of tests for it, I've no objection - it seems a plausible > thing to do. But I would prefer that any solution did not involve > reading the instruction at every step; that's quite slow, on a target > where we otherwise do not need to. I don't really see any reason to change things here.