Re: [PATCH 3/3] fix skipping permanent breakpoints

[Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>]

Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

> If there was already an outermost step-resume breakpoint set (we're
> already skipping a function for "next", and tripped on a permanent
> breakpoint), we shouldn't clear step, as that'll make us miss
> software watchpoints.
>
> We'd avoid this issue if we could have more than one step-resume
> breakpoint installed for the same thread, that isn't allowed for
> good reason.  Thinking again, we have a better breakpoint type
> for this -- a software single-step breakpoint.  We're implementing
> single-step ourselves, so sounds like a perfect fit.  The only
> issue is that a couple paths in infrun.c we need are guarded by 
> gdbarch_software_single_step_p.  Those are optimization guards.
> Given we need that code on hardware step targets too, we just
> remove them...  (I'll reindent in the final version.)

Yeah, it is clever to use single-step breakpoint here.  This version
looks good enough to me, although I've seen some fails on arm.  I don't
triage them at this moment, and we can revisit them later.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)