From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27689 invoked by alias); 28 May 2010 15:58:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 27677 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2010 15:58:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 May 2010 15:58:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4SFwIQv018594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:58:18 -0400 Received: from fche.csb (vpn-226-119.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.226.119]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4SFwIV3028983; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:58:18 -0400 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id 83BF658102; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:58:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Joseph Altmaier Cc: sid@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Problem Halting Execution Message-ID: <20100528155817.GF25135@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-q2/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 Hi - > I'm writing a SID port, and I can't get it to halt properly. What kind of halt do you want exactly? A simulator termination? Handing of control to gdb? > What is the functionality of yield()?� It does not seem to stop > instruction flow. It should end the step_insn() loop soon and return. > When yield() is called step_insns() will return after the break at > the end of the loop but then it gets called again. [...] Yes, unless told otherwise, the scheduler that's driving the cpu instruction steps will signal again to continue running. - FChE