From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113742 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2015 14:58:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 113727 invoked by uid 89); 10 Aug 2015 14:58:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,UNSUBSCRIBE_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oi0-f99.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f99.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f99.google.com) (209.85.218.99) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:58:29 +0000 Received: by oifo84 with SMTP id o84so5371083oif.1 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=rkyYwYQDeulya1KdyAaHf83ZsI6GOrlfAZYjmwPL/4Q=; b=ARRRCC3bNigLEneAzNUuQj7EYDr+mVJJ6gf/2vqXFV/WXQ0vi3smeOvrChjIFkvcAn DgffqzVbhLW7HEdQehnSCWXowVU0V3JNkn+NDrJrgI2tNlHqwXmlqoKYgSAmZg4DYwox F+ZQNvJ7ci1DQ0PuJ/3DadWvfq6C0/WWM42FrDpSutI4XMWOzPvS/0J8s7SwT+3cd8jr GtAAp6DjISHWf4cuJqiEH7fvps599H6gZYBjhwozESXBrM9pKSH1gcT8SGmU74t4MU6Y vjR6eNAW8p7BiVJFCNMySuN2duuULoi+QrJKpgGN4VMsFey/W2YJU91VDa+2oYxmTyE7 QfHg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmgdBEHR7J3tmbMIPmwhwCGcIodh/uGEu3rJF+43yBzoxSDLmm7/JkGH6ZksGiT6Q+Fp+G4nyaP4Pi87JObiOahMY4Gqg== X-Received: by 10.107.3.139 with SMTP id e11mr21822068ioi.18.1439218706943; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02a.notes.lexmark.com ([192.146.101.8]) by smtp-relay.gmail.com with ESMTP id t14sm850615igr.3.2015.08.10.07.58.26 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: lexmark.com Received: from lxkssmtp2e.lex.lexmark.com (smtp5b.notes.lexmark.com [157.184.50.112]) by smtp02a.notes.lexmark.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0114139BFD for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from seshat.lpdev.prtdev.lexmark.com ([10.199.21.28]) by lxkssmtp2e.lex.lexmark.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.5) with ESMTP id 2015081010582584-2580238 ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:58:25 -0400 Received: from khan.lpdev.prtdev.lexmark.com (khan.lpdev.prtdev.lexmark.com [157.184.138.94]) by seshat.lpdev.prtdev.lexmark.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6E74100AD for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55C8BC0E.8060907@lpdev.prtdev.lexmark.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:58:00 -0000 From: John Breitenbach User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb won't single-step over ARM integer divide opcode References: <55C24FD0.8010007@lexmark.com> <55C73BEA.2050203@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55C73BEA.2050203@gmail.com> X-LPDEV-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-ID: 6D6E74100AD.A5725 X-LPDEV-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LPDEV-MailScanner-From: breiten@lpdev.prtdev.lexmark.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 Yao, Yes, your patch does work for me. Sorry for not noticing your patch earlier. John On 08/09/2015 07:39 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 05/08/15 19:02, John Breitenbach wrote: >> I did some debugging and have found that the function, >> arm_get_next_pc_raw, inappropriately decodes this opcode as a load into >> the PC register. (bits 24..27 are 7, bit 20 is set, and the dest >> register appears to be the PC. >> >> Binutils's logic to disassemble the sdiv/udiv opcodes has opcode & >> 0x0ff0f0f0 = 0x0710f010 (with bit 21 distinguishing between udiv and >> sdiv) >> >> I've come up with the following patch which makes my situation work. But >> I don't know how complete it is, as there may be other newer opcodes >> which fall into the formerly undefined instruction space. > > Hi John, > Thanks for your patch, however, I think I've fixed this problem in > patch https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-06/msg00610.html > Does it work for you? This commit will be in 7.10 release. > >> >> Also, the comment "byte write to PC" around line 4930 seems wrong, as >> the check for bit 22 a few lines earlier catches that situation, and >> what's left is word writes to the PC." >> > > Yeah, it is possible. Patch is welcome :) >