From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: jtc@redback.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: remote protocol extension for step out of range Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:18:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A90A01E.8DEF5998@cygnus.com> References: <5mwvbjj7k8.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <5mvgqw8hpt.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <3A79BFB3.E2C17712@cygnus.com> <5mpuh2unuq.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <3A7EED79.678DFCE4@cygnus.com> <5mhf2899s7.fsf@jtc.redback.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00257.html > 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