From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31369 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2005 15:39:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 31354 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2005 15:39:50 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:39:50 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EY3fN-000195-18; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:39:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:39:00 -0000 From: 'Daniel Jacobowitz' To: Simon Richter Cc: Dave Korn , 'Efim Monjak' , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: break of close loop Message-ID: <20051104153944.GA4309@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Simon Richter , Dave Korn , 'Efim Monjak' , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <436B7BE1.5040702@hogyros.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <436B7BE1.5040702@hogyros.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:18:57PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > Dave Korn wrote: > > > The stub is probably implemented by placing a temp breakpoint immediately > >after the instruction to be tested, but has negelected the fact that to > >handle > >jumps you may need to place the temp breakpoint somewhere _other_ than > >immediately after the instruction, > > The question at hand appears to be breakpoints placed on top of the > instruction being stepped, as the instruction steps back to itself. This > is especially common on architectures with a dedicated "decrement and > jump if not zero" instruction. If you have such instructions, and you don't have hardware single step, then you need to be prepared to either wait for the instruction to finish or else interrupt it. I don't see the problem. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC