Re: remote protocol extension for step out of range

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> I think we can poke a similar hole in GDB as it stands today.  For
> instance, GDB does a step out of range for thread T1.  Without the
> step out of range command, it does it internally by issuing multiple
> steps and comparing the PC after each step.  While this is happening,
> thread T2 hits a breakpoint and returns status that T2 has stopped.
> The user then does a step out of range for T2.
> 
> I think the problem is the same, and will only be solved when GDB
> is able to track multiple processes/threads/contexts.

That is what I want to be 100% clear on.

It means that there is probably going to be an interum version of this
feature - one that works with the current thread model.  This discussion
thread [er, groan] should provide the rationale behind the decision :-)

Enjoy,
	Andrew