From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16352 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2005 09:28:42 -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 16274 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2005 09:28:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pixel.clearspeed.com) (195.10.240.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Jan 2005 09:28:33 -0000 Received: from fyles (Pixie189.pixelfusion.co.uk [192.168.0.189]) by pixel.clearspeed.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id j0V9SR54007855 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:28:27 GMT From: "Matt Fyles" To: Subject: Stepping through code with breakpoints on adjacent address lines. Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 I just wanted to clear up the expected behavior when stepping code that has breakpoints on adjacent address lines. In this simple example. 0x0 instruction A 0x4 instruction B 0x8 instruction C If I break on addresses 0x0, 0x4 and 0x8 with the break *(address) functionality and then continue to 0x0 and step the other 2 instructions I only ever see the breakpoint trigger on address 0x0. GDB steps to the next 2 addresses but does not report a breakpoint at either location. Is this the expected behavior. It looks from the source in infrun.c (handle_inferior_event()) that if the trap_expected flag is set then it discards any breakpoint matching at the current address. Any thoughts?