public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:39:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1411691982-10744-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1411691982-10744-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com>

... instead of trap_expected.

Gets rid of one singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p reference, and is
generally more to the point.

gdb/
2014-09-22  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>

	* infrun.c (step_over_info_valid_p): New function.
	(resume): Use step_over_info_valid_p instead of checking the
	threads's trap_expected flag.  Add debug output.
---
 gdb/infrun.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c
index 5e123be..6c8296d 100644
--- a/gdb/infrun.c
+++ b/gdb/infrun.c
@@ -1038,6 +1038,14 @@ stepping_past_instruction_at (struct address_space *aspace,
 				       step_over_info.address));
 }
 
+/* Returns true if step-over info is valid.  */
+
+static int
+step_over_info_valid_p (void)
+{
+  return (step_over_info.aspace != NULL);
+}
+
 \f
 /* Displaced stepping.  */
 
@@ -1903,7 +1911,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to continue execution."));
      once we arrive back at the step-resume breakpoint, actually step
      over the breakpoint we originally wanted to step over.  */
   if (singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p
-      && tp->control.trap_expected && sig != GDB_SIGNAL_0)
+      && sig != GDB_SIGNAL_0
+      && step_over_info_valid_p ())
     {
       /* If we have nested signals or a pending signal is delivered
 	 immediately after a handler returns, might might already have
@@ -1997,13 +2006,10 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to continue execution."));
   tp->suspend.stop_signal = GDB_SIGNAL_0;
 
   /* Advise target which signals may be handled silently.  If we have
-     removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one (which can
-     happen only if we are not using displaced stepping), we need to
+     removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one, we need to
      receive all signals to avoid accidentally skipping a breakpoint
      during execution of a signal handler.  */
-  if ((step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)
-      && tp->control.trap_expected
-      && !use_displaced_stepping (gdbarch))
+  if (step_over_info_valid_p ())
     target_pass_signals (0, NULL);
   else
     target_pass_signals ((int) GDB_SIGNAL_LAST, signal_pass);
-- 
1.9.3

  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-26  0:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-26  0:39 [PATCH 0/9] software single-step support rework, fix limitations Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  0:39 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2014-09-28 12:52   ` [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info Yao Qi
2014-10-02 18:05     ` Pedro Alves
2014-10-06  1:06       ` Yao Qi
2014-10-06  8:42         ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  0:39 ` [PATCH 2/9] Rewrite non-continuable watchpoints handling Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  0:40 ` [PATCH 4/9] Remove deprecated_insert_raw_breakpoint and friends Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  0:40 ` [PATCH 8/9] Make single-step breakpoints be per-thread Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  0:40 ` [PATCH 3/9] Put single-step breakpoints on the bp_location chain Pedro Alves
2014-09-28 12:36   ` Yao Qi
2014-09-30 13:01     ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 13:15       ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-29  6:33   ` Yao Qi
2014-10-02 17:55     ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  0:40 ` [PATCH 5/9] Switch back to stepped thread: clear step-over info Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 16:33   ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  0:40 ` [PATCH 9/9] Non-stop + software single-step archs: don't force displaced-stepping for all single-steps Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  1:18 ` [PATCH 6/9] thread.c: cleanup breakpoint deletion Pedro Alves
2014-09-26  1:36 ` [PATCH 7/9] infrun.c: add for_each_just_stopped_thread Pedro Alves

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=1411691982-10744-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com \
    --to=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).