From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17756 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2014 13:44:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 17691 invoked by uid 89); 15 Oct 2014 13:44:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:44:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9FDiqGV013660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:44:52 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9FDiovq007641; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:44:50 -0400 Message-ID: <543E7A51.8020609@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:44:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] stepi/nexti: skip signal handler if "handle nostop" signal arrives References: <1413308910-30423-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <87oatdmvzd.fsf@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <87oatdmvzd.fsf@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00392.txt.bz2 On 10/15/2014 12:08 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Pedro Alves writes: > >> I think that having to explain that "stepi" steps into handlers, (and >> that "nexti" wouldn't according to my reasoning above), while "step" >> does, is a sign of an awkward interface. >> > > I suspect you meant "step" does NOT, right? Gah. Indeed. > >> diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c >> index d61cc12..3682765 100644 >> --- a/gdb/infrun.c >> +++ b/gdb/infrun.c >> @@ -4455,7 +4455,8 @@ handle_signal_stop (struct execution_control_state *ecs) >> >> if (ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_end != 0 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Is it still needed? > Hmm, yeah, looks like it never was. >> && ecs->event_thread->suspend.stop_signal != GDB_SIGNAL_0 >> - && pc_in_thread_step_range (stop_pc, ecs->event_thread) >> + && (pc_in_thread_step_range (stop_pc, ecs->event_thread) >> + || ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_end == 1) >> && frame_id_eq (get_stack_frame_id (frame), >> ecs->event_thread->control.step_stack_frame_id) >> && ecs->event_thread->control.step_resume_breakpoint == NULL) Thanks, Pedro Alves