From: Aleksandar Ristovski <aristovski@qnx.com>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] stepping over permanent breakpoint
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:04:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <gpm7r0$alk$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200903161850.n2GIoZgc021072@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> From: Aleksandar Ristovski <aristovski@qnx.com>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:40:49 -0400
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> When there is a hard-coded breakpoint in code, like in this
>> example (for x86):
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> __asm(" int $0x03\n");
>> printf("Hello World\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> gdb on linux will appear to work correctly.
>
> Well, on Linux, that instruction will not be interpreted as a
> permanent breakpoint, just like on QNX.
Except on QNX gdb will not be able to continue or step over
that instruction.
>
>> However, on systems that do not need pc adjustment after
>> break (like QNX) gdb will not be able to step over that
>> breakpoint unless user explicitly sets a breakpoint on top
>> of it.
>
> The big question here is whether a breakpoint trap instruction should
> always be interpreted as a permanent breakpoint in GDB or that it only
> gets interpreted as such if you actually tell GDB about it. Up until
> now, we've always done the latter. If you don't tell GDB, random
> breakpoint trap instructions are handled as normal instructions and
> you get to see whatever the architecture/OS does for these
> instructions.
Yes, this is my dilemma. I think we could print more
informative message, but I am not sure.
>
>> I think that in case of linux it is actually working by
>> accident - because kernel does not back-up instruction
>> pointer after hard-coded breakpoint instruction was
>> executed. Gdb will receive SIGTRAP but will not really know why.
>>
>> Attached patch fixes this for systems where
>> gdbarch_decr_pc_after_break (gdbarch) == 0
>
> If you want to fix things, it should be fixed for *all* systems.
>
What I proposed only brings in line those systems and makes
them able to continue after hitting a permanent breakpoint
(so on systems that normally do not need adjustment, I added
advancing over the hardcoded breakpoint).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-16 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-16 17:41 Aleksandar Ristovski
2009-03-16 18:22 ` Pedro Alves
2009-03-16 18:55 ` Aleksandar Ristovski
2009-03-16 19:38 ` Pedro Alves
2009-03-16 20:37 ` Aleksandar Ristovski
2009-03-16 18:50 ` Mark Kettenis
2009-03-16 19:04 ` Aleksandar Ristovski [this message]
2009-03-23 16:50 ` RFC: Program Breakpoints (was: [RFC] stepping over permanent breakpoint) Ross Morley
2009-03-24 16:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-03-24 20:33 ` RFC: Program Breakpoints Ross Morley
2009-03-24 20:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-03-24 23:48 ` Pedro Alves
2009-03-25 7:58 ` Mark Kettenis
2009-03-25 13:17 ` Pedro Alves
2009-03-24 23:59 ` Ross Morley
2009-03-31 0:44 ` Ross Morley
2009-03-31 3:17 ` 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='gpm7r0$alk$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=aristovski@qnx.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/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