From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 08:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <543255F6.9010500@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87oatqui22.fsf@codesourcery.com>
On 10/06/2014 02:02 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> I.e., if we have step-over info, then something, somewhere wants a
>> breakpoint lifted out of the target. No matter whether we're
>> stepping or continuing the target at this point, we need to receive
>> all signals so that if the signal handler calls the code that
>> would trigger the breakpoint/watchpoint, we don't miss it.
>>
>> Removing this check now avoids having tweak it when
>> singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p check global ends up
>> eliminated by a later patch in the series.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>
> Yes, it makes sense to me.
>
> I've reviewed the rest of patches, and they are good to me. I've tested
> the whole patch set with the changes I suggested in patch 3/9 on
> arm-linux-gnueabi target. No regression.
Excellent. Thank you very much, Yao.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-06 8:42 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 ` [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info Pedro Alves
2014-09-28 12:52 ` Yao Qi
2014-10-02 18:05 ` Pedro Alves
2014-10-06 1:06 ` Yao Qi
2014-10-06 8:42 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
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 9/9] Non-stop + software single-step archs: don't force displaced-stepping for all single-steps 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 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=543255F6.9010500@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=yao@codesourcery.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).