From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25790 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2005 15:35:58 -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 25671 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2005 15:35:49 -0000 Received: from host217-40-213-68.in-addr.btopenworld.com (HELO SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:35:49 +0000 Received: from espanola ([192.168.1.110]) by SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:35:46 +0000 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Simon Richter'" Cc: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" , "'Efim Monjak'" , Subject: RE: break of close loop Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:35:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <436B7BE1.5040702@hogyros.de> Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00104.txt.bz2 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. That's one of the corner-cases and is indeed one of the reasons why emulating a branch instruction is often a better idea than trying to let it run and trap it.... cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....