From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Force to insert software single step breakpoint
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <571A52F9.6060201@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <861t60k9dl.fsf@gmail.com>
Looks OK to me now. A couple nits below.
On 04/20/2016 08:49 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
>
> 2016-04-20 Yao Qi <yao.qi@linaro.org>
>
> * breakpoint.c (should_be_inserted): Return 0 if the location's
> owner is not single step breakpoint or single step brekapoint's
type "brekapoint".
> owner isn't the thread we are stepping over.
> * gdbarch.sh (software_single_step): Update comments.
> * gdbarch.h: Regenerated.
> * infrun.c (struct step_over_info) <thread>: New field.
> (set_step_over_info): New argument 'thread'. Callers updated.
> (clear_step_over_info): Set field thread to -1.
> (thread_is_being_stepped_over_p): New function.
We don't step over threads, but rather threads step over breakpoints.
I'd suggest:
thread_is_stepping_over_breakpoint_p
(Personally. I don't see the need for a _p / predicate suffix
when the function is clearly a predicate, due to use of the
"is". thread_being_stepped_over_p / thread_is_being_stepped_over).
> * infrun.h (thread_is_being_stepped_over_p): Declaration.
>
> diff --git a/gdb/breakpoint.c b/gdb/breakpoint.c
> index f99a7ab..64e97c6 100644
> --- a/gdb/breakpoint.c
> +++ b/gdb/breakpoint.c
> @@ -2219,11 +2219,22 @@ should_be_inserted (struct bp_location *bl)
> return 0;
>
> /* Don't insert a breakpoint if we're trying to step past its
> - location. */
> + location except that the breakpoint is single-step breakpoint
> + and the single-step breakpoint's owner is the thread we're
> + stepping over. */
"breakpoint's owner" is kind of possible confusing
with "bp location owner", which is itself a breakpoint.
I'd find it clearer to copy&edit it to say:
/* Don't insert a breakpoint if we're trying to step past its
location, except if the breakpoint is a single-step breakpoint,
and the breakpoint's thread is the thread that is stepping past
a breakpoint. */
> /* See infrun.h. */
> @@ -1365,6 +1371,15 @@ stepping_past_instruction_at (struct address_space *aspace,
> /* See infrun.h. */
>
> int
> +thread_is_being_stepped_over_p (int thread)
> +{
> + return (step_over_info.aspace != NULL
> + && thread == step_over_info.thread);
Wouldn't:
return (step_over_info.thread != -1
&& thread == step_over_info.thread);
be a bit more to the point? Using the aspace field makes me wonder whether
we're caring for a case where step_over_info.thread is set to some
thread, but aspace is NULL.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-22 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-23 16:10 [PATCH 0/7 V2] Step over instruction branches to itself Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 6/7] Resume the inferior with signal rather than stepping over Yao Qi
2016-04-11 15:29 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 4/7] Insert breakpoint even when the raw breakpoint is found Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:41 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-12 9:04 ` Yao Qi
2016-04-12 9:41 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-25 8:45 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 2/7] Deliver signal in hardware single step Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:10 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-22 10:54 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 1/7] New test case gdb.trace/signal.exp Yao Qi
2016-04-08 16:52 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-11 8:41 ` Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:04 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-22 10:53 ` Yao Qi
2016-04-26 12:57 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-11 14:08 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 5/7] [GDBserver] Don't error in reinsert_raw_breakpoint if bp->inserted Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:54 ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 3/7] Force to insert software single step breakpoint Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:31 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-13 16:21 ` Yao Qi
2016-04-19 14:54 ` Yao Qi
2016-04-19 15:17 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-20 7:50 ` Yao Qi
2016-04-22 16:36 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2016-04-25 8:40 ` Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:26 ` [PATCH 7/7] New test case gdb.base/branch-to-self.exp Yao Qi
2016-04-11 15:34 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-25 8:58 ` Yao Qi
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=571A52F9.6060201@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=qiyaoltc@gmail.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).