From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28699 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2004 14:31:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28251 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2004 14:31:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO miranda.se.axis.com) (193.13.178.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Sep 2004 14:31:32 -0000 Received: from [10.84.130.1] (ironmaiden.se.axis.com [10.84.130.1]) by miranda.se.axis.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5local0.1) with ESMTP id i83EUe05009310; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:30:40 +0200 Message-ID: <4138800F.9050503@axis.com> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:31:00 -0000 From: Orjan Friberg Organization: Axis Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Register fudging (CRISv32) References: <4138656F.9020001@axis.com> <20040903134721.GA1028@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040903134721.GA1028@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Daniel, thanks for you answers. > Up to you. I think doing it in the kernel stub and kernel ptrace > support is a better strategy, esp. if you have additional information > confirming that a breakpoint was hit. In the kernel I know for sure it was a breakpoint (or, more specifically, a certain break instruction was executed, which is how ordinary breakpoints are implemented). > There's arguments both ways for this. For instance, I think it would > be reasonable to do this in the kernel. Except for the fact that the "PC" doesn't exist in the kernel - it's a made up register, which is set either from the exception return pointer register (+ possibly delay slot adjustment), or from the single-step PC (when we're single-stepping that is). Or are you suggesting that the pseudo-PC *should be* in the kernel (if not part of the pt_regs struct, then at least accessible by ptrace)? > Not sure what you mean by this. For example, in case of a PTRACE_CONT I set the single-step PC to 0 to disable single-stepping (similar to what the m68k does). -- Orjan Friberg Axis Communications