From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" <drow@false.org>,
"'Simon Richter'" <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
Cc: "'Efim Monjak'" <ymonyak@lipowsky.de>, <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: RE: break of close loop
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SERRANORf3sllNY30kk00000177@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051104153944.GA4309@nevyn.them.org>
'Daniel Jacobowitz' wrote:
> 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.
No, I still think that's a buggy stub; I think that, given a djnz-style
instruction, "stepi" should execute it precisely once (decrement the counter,
keep PC the same if non-zero or advanced to next instruction if counter reg
now == 0), and "nexti" should run it to completion, shouldn't they? That's
certainly how x86 debugging works natively. The lack of hardware single-step
is something the stub should transparently handle.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-04 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-04 9:15 Efim Monjak
2005-11-04 14:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-04 15:13 ` Dave Korn
2005-11-04 15:19 ` Simon Richter
2005-11-04 15:35 ` Dave Korn
2005-11-04 15:39 ` 'Daniel Jacobowitz'
2005-11-04 15:46 ` Dave Korn [this message]
2005-11-04 16:00 ` 'Daniel Jacobowitz'
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-11-02 16:41 Efim Monjak
2005-11-03 21:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
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=SERRANORf3sllNY30kk00000177@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM \
--to=dave.korn@artimi.com \
--cc=Simon.Richter@hogyros.de \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=ymonyak@lipowsky.de \
/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).