This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- Cc: ping huang <harderock at gmail dot com>, shuchang zhou <shuchang dot zhou at gmail dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, paawan oza <paawan1982 at yahoo dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:12:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record
- References: <daef60380912180021h5d029e55k7dc4e3f4c8d33b36@mail.gmail.com> <201006111455.36401.pedro@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTim8M55gdtPycCXIiCfWfA7X2_Ctoad6t7R14ZlI@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Hui,
On Sunday 20 June 2010 08:28:40, Hui Zhu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 21:55, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > I'm felling a bit dense, and I don't see what is that actually
> > catching. If going backwards, the assertion always ends up
> > evaled as true, nomatter if sofware single-steps are inserted
> > or not, or whether `step' is set. Did you mean to assert
> > that when going backwards, there shouldn't ever be software
> > single-step breakpoints inserted?
> >
> > This patch is okay otherwise. Thanks.
>
> Thanks Pedro.
> I was also confused by this issue too. I thought it will never happen
> too. But Ping said he got this issue. And I didn't have the risc
> board to test. So I gived up and put this patch to him.
>
> So I think this patch is not very hurry to checked in until some one
> post a risc prec support patch. At that time, I will make this issue
> clear.
I'd be fine with putting the patch in now, but without the change to
that gdb_assert. It looked like a step in the right direction,
and we can fix any left issues later.
--
Pedro Alves