From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4605 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2014 01:06:29 -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 4493 invoked by uid 89); 6 Oct 2014 01:06:28 -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 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; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 01:06:27 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Xawkp-0006aF-PG from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:06:23 -0700 Received: from GreenOnly (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:06:23 -0700 From: Yao Qi To: Pedro Alves CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info References: <1411691982-10744-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1411691982-10744-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <87fvfbx65x.fsf@codesourcery.com> <542D93F8.7050005@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 01:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <542D93F8.7050005@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 2 Oct 2014 19:05:44 +0100") Message-ID: <87oatqui22.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: 2014-10/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves 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. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)