Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" <drow@false.org>,
	"'Efim Monjak'" <ymonyak@lipowsky.de>
Cc: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: RE: break of close loop
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:13:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <SERRANObieLYCT4aJ6p00000174@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051104142702.GB1842@nevyn.them.org>

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:14:31AM +0100, Efim Monjak wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as I see the step for debugger is not the same as stepi.
>> After step command debugger try to go to the next source line.
>> I think it checks for number of source line.
>> I mean many single steps can be done before an another source
>> line is recognised. Recognising of an other source line is need
>> to complete the step command.
>> After single step command only one single step is done. I don't know
>> if for an other address is checked or single step responce is enougth
>> to complete the single step.
> 
> Then your stub is simply wrong.  GDB expects a single step instruction
> to execute a single instruction, not until the address changes.


  The stub is probably implemented by placing a temp breakpoint immediately
after the instruction to be tested, but has negelected the fact that to handle
jumps you may need to place the temp breakpoint somewhere _other_ than
immediately after the instruction, and that with conditional branches you need
to place _two_ temp breakpoints, one at the branch target and one immediately
after the branch to catch the fallthrough if the branch is not taken.

  Which is why it's often easier for a stub to just emulate jump/branch insns.



    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


  reply	other threads:[~2005-11-04 15:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-11-04  9:15 Efim Monjak
2005-11-04 14:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-04 15:13   ` Dave Korn [this message]
2005-11-04 15:19     ` Simon Richter
2005-11-04 15:35       ` Dave Korn
2005-11-04 15:39       ` 'Daniel Jacobowitz'
2005-11-04 15:46         ` Dave Korn
2005-11-04 16:00           ` 'Daniel Jacobowitz'
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-11-02 16:41 Efim Monjak
2005-11-03 21:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=SERRANObieLYCT4aJ6p00000174@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM \
    --to=dave.korn@artimi.com \
    --cc=drow@false.org \
    --cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=ymonyak@lipowsky.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox