Re: [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info

[Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>]

Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

> gdb/
> 2014-09-22  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>
>
> 	* infrun.c (step_over_info_valid_p): New function.
> 	(resume): Use step_over_info_valid_p instead of checking the
> 	threads's trap_expected flag.  Add debug output.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't see any debug output added by the code.  Maybe a staled changelog entry?

> +/* Returns true if step-over info is valid.  */
> +
> +static int
> +step_over_info_valid_p (void)
> +{
> +  return (step_over_info.aspace != NULL);
> +}
> +

How about replace "step_over_info.aspace != NULL" in
stepping_past_instruction_at with step_over_info_valid_p too?

>    /* Advise target which signals may be handled silently.  If we have
> -     removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one (which can
> -     happen only if we are not using displaced stepping), we need to
> +     removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one, we need to
>       receive all signals to avoid accidentally skipping a breakpoint
>       during execution of a signal handler.  */
> -  if ((step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)
> -      && tp->control.trap_expected
> -      && !use_displaced_stepping (gdbarch))
> +  if (step_over_info_valid_p ())

Why do we remove condition (step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)?
I understand that step_over_info_valid_p is equivalent to
"tp->control.trap_expected && !use_displaced_stepping (gdbarch)", so I
don't know why (step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p) is removed
too.

>      target_pass_signals (0, NULL);
>    else
>      target_pass_signals ((int) GDB_SIGNAL_LAST, signal_pass);

-- 
Yao (齐尧)