From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 01:06:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oatqui22.fsf@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <542D93F8.7050005@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 2 Oct 2014 19:05:44 +0100")
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> I.e., if we have step-over info, then something, somewhere wants a
> breakpoint lifted out of the target. No matter whether we're
> stepping or continuing the target at this point, we need to receive
> all signals so that if the signal handler calls the code that
> would trigger the breakpoint/watchpoint, we don't miss it.
>
> Removing this check now avoids having tweak it when
> singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p check global ends up
> eliminated by a later patch in the series.
>
> Does that make sense?
Yes, it makes sense to me.
I've reviewed the rest of patches, and they are good to me. I've tested
the whole patch set with the changes I suggested in patch 3/9 on
arm-linux-gnueabi target. No regression.
--
Yao (齐尧)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-06 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-26 0:39 [PATCH 0/9] software single-step support rework, fix limitations Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info Pedro Alves
2014-09-28 12:52 ` Yao Qi
2014-10-02 18:05 ` Pedro Alves
2014-10-06 1:06 ` Yao Qi [this message]
2014-10-06 8:42 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 0:39 ` [PATCH 2/9] Rewrite non-continuable watchpoints handling Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 0:40 ` [PATCH 4/9] Remove deprecated_insert_raw_breakpoint and friends Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 0:40 ` [PATCH 3/9] Put single-step breakpoints on the bp_location chain Pedro Alves
2014-09-28 12:36 ` Yao Qi
2014-09-30 13:01 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 13:15 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-29 6:33 ` Yao Qi
2014-10-02 17:55 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 0:40 ` [PATCH 5/9] Switch back to stepped thread: clear step-over info Pedro Alves
2014-09-30 16:33 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 0:40 ` [PATCH 8/9] Make single-step breakpoints be per-thread Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 0:40 ` [PATCH 9/9] Non-stop + software single-step archs: don't force displaced-stepping for all single-steps Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 1:18 ` [PATCH 6/9] thread.c: cleanup breakpoint deletion Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 1:36 ` [PATCH 7/9] infrun.c: add for_each_just_stopped_thread Pedro Alves
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=87oatqui22.fsf@codesourcery.com \
--to=yao@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.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).