Re: RFC: Program Breakpoints (was: [RFC] stepping over permanent breakpoint)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:50:30AM -0700, Ross Morley wrote:
> It was interesting to see the matter of skipping permanent breakpoints
> come up on this list. This is very similar to an issue we dealt with
> a couple of years ago with Xtensa and remote targets. Our solution
> has been stable for at least two years, but has not yet been prepared
> for submission because I've had higher priorities (and at that time we
> were way out of sync with mainline GDB). The issue is actually more
> complicated than the forgoing discussion suggests.
>
> I'd like to discuss it here and present our solution. I'll attach a
> patch for our current solution relative to GDB 6.8, but I do propose
> to revise it to improve some areas based on our experience (in the
> next few weeks) - I'll discuss that toward the end of this post.

I read through this; overall, it looks sane.  On some targets
implementing this would require the remote stub to read from pc
anyway; that's faster than GDB doing it, but not necessarily much
faster.  But on some other targets the stub has to do this anyway,
or can pipeline it with other necessary operations, so it's not a big
loss.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery