From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30615 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2014 00:54:39 -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 30595 invoked by uid 89); 12 Nov 2014 00:54:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:54:37 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XoMCg-0001BF-9Y from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:54:34 -0800 Received: from GreenOnly (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:54:33 -0800 From: Yao Qi To: Pedro Alves CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fix skipping permanent breakpoints References: <1415127790-15091-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1415127790-15091-4-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <87y4rp7s02.fsf@codesourcery.com> <545D2330.4090006@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:54:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <545D2330.4090006@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 7 Nov 2014 19:53:20 +0000") Message-ID: <8761elb5mi.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves 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=20 > 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. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)