From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3330 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2003 14:19:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3225 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2003 14:19:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (193.41.215.82) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 14 Feb 2003 14:19:30 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12F13CE5; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:19:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3E4CFAEE.1000100@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:19:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Hoogerbrugge Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Remote breakpoint problem References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00228.txt.bz2 > Hi, > > I am porting gdb to a new target processor were remote debugging is used. I have a problem with breakpoints. When I place a breakpoint on foo followed by a continue I see the following communication between gdb and the stub on the other side: > > - the instruction at foo is saved > - foo is replaced by a breakpoint instruction > - gdb sends a continue command > - the stub reports the breakpoint hit (signal = 5, pc = foo) > - gdb replaces the code at foo with the saved instruction > - gdb sends a step instruction command > - tbe stub reports again a breakpoint hit at foo (signal = 5, pc = foo) Shouldn't this stop beyond foo? > - gdb sends a continue command immediatly > > So a breakpoint is detected and communicated to gdb but gdb lets the application continue immediately without giving control to the gdb user. Does anyone know what is wrong? > > I have used breakpoint_from_pc function to supply the breakpoint code.