This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
- From: teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>
- To: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder at vmware dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>, "Daniel Jacobowitz" <drow at false dot org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:12:29 +0800
- Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
- References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com> <20080915184245.GA21388@caradoc.them.org>
I think is before exec the next instruction, the GDB will get breakpoint trap.
But I found that there is a bug in inside record replay mode, I stop
the GDB after exec the instruction.
Michael, how do you deal with the breakpoint in gdb-freeplay and vmware record?
Hui
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 02:42, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > When we're stopped at a breakpoint and we want to
> > continue in reverse, we're not actually going to
> > execute the instruction at the breakpoint -- we're
> > going to de-execute the previous instruction.
> >
> > Therefore there's no need to singlestep before
> > inserting breakpoints. In fact it would be a bad
> > idea to do so, because if there is a breakpoint at
> > the previous instruction, we WANT to hit it.
> >
> > Note that this patch is to be applied to the reverse branch.
>
> If there is a breakpoint on the previous instruction, will you hit it
> before or after de-executing that instruction? It seems like this
> logic should be somehow still necessary... but I can't put my finger
> on when.
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery