From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2170 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 19:29:32 -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 2162 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 19:29:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Aug 2004 19:29:31 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7OJTQS2008831 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:29:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7OJTPa01130; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:29:25 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B532C2B9D; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <412B96D0.9080104@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Unable to step over (n and ni) on mipsel-linux... References: <412649F4.9040002@avtrex.com> <412A25B1.7080308@gnu.org> <412A30E5.9080809@avtrex.com> <412A3672.5040904@gnu.org> <412A39AF.1080103@avtrex.com> <20040823184801.GA10657@nevyn.them.org> <412A3E3F.3020409@avtrex.com> <20040823192159.GA12007@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040823192159.GA12007@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:58:07AM -0700, David Daney wrote: > >>> For next and nexti it does not need to analyse the stack frames. >>> >>> I have half a mind to hack up mips-tdep.c:mips32_next_pc so that it >>> returns the address following the jal/jalr if step_over_calls == >>> STEP_OVER_ALL or some such thing. > > > IMO, this is reasonable on targets where we're using software single > step anyway. It's also reasonable if trust_readonly_sections is true. > Would anyone object to an optional gdbarch method that took a PC, and > returned the return address of the call represented by that PC, if the > instruction is a call? Why not add to s/w single-step as a parameter? Andrew