This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable range stepping for ARM on GDBServer
- From: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:46:23 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable range stepping for ARM on GDBServer
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160831171406.24057-1-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <20160831171406.24057-2-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <b5bc1e35-1840-a7ab-6392-cb29c4ee4b8f@redhat.com> <wwokwpiwyfct.fsf@ericsson.com> <3fdb7193-60c7-49c9-ccf5-bc040aa157ea@redhat.com> <wwoktwe0ycml.fsf@ericsson.com> <a44c8554-cc86-6ed1-b5cf-0697189eca73@redhat.com> <wwokr393hchh.fsf@ericsson.com> <fb926e69-f730-1659-668d-93d3b7453306@redhat.com>
Pedro Alves writes:
> On 09/01/2016 04:21 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>>
>> Pedro Alves writes:
>>
>>> On 08/31/2016 08:14 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I can't be more helpful at the moment but I wanted to post
>>>> this issue before I have to leave for a while.
>>>
>>> Understood. Does enabling range stepping unblock something else?
>>
>> It would unblock ARM tracepoints, as per Yao's requirements...
>
> Tracepoints make gdbserver single-step and then not report the event
> to gdb, so I do see the parallel with range-stepping. Throwing
> while-stepping into the equation would make it even more clear.
>
> But maybe we can paralyze? If enabling tracepoints without range
> stepping causes no known regression, but enabling range stepping with
> no tracepoints causes regressions, seems to me like we could put
> tracepoints in first, and fix whatever range stepping problems
> in parallel.
>
I would totally agree with that. (tracepoints do not cause any
regressions without range stepping)
Yao ?
> Skipping the test sounds far from ideal to me, since the test has a
> tendency of catching problems. Witness patch 1/2 in this very
> series, for example...
Indeed.
Thanks,
Antoine