From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18636 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2002 06:10:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18448 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 06:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 06:10:47 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946F53C8E; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:10:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C6A0365.4050207@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: sid@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: sid debugger interface extension: step out-of-range packet support References: <20020212171421.D13536@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 > Hi - > > A small amount of new code in sid/include and sid/component/gdb > now allows gdb's "step out-of-range" packet ('e'/'E') to work with > all sid-based simulator targets. This packet makes remote debugging > potentially significantly faster, because it can replace a sequence of > instruction single-step packets with just one new packet. This finally > exercises J.T. Conklin's gdb-side extensions from roughly a year ago. > > There is a gdb bug that is exposed by this support. If a breakpoint > placed on the current instruction, and another one on the next > source line, then letting gdb "step" will stop at the next line, but > won't let gdb realize that the second breakpoint was hit. (This is > because gdb never inserted the breakpoints in gdb/infrun.c's proceed(), > being unaware that remote_resume() meant something other than stepi.) > This looks like this is a minor problem, but just in case, support for > the packet may be forced off from the gdb side and/or from the sid side. Just to be clear. I wouldn't rely to much on that current packet and/or implementation. A number of issues with it have been pointed out with it. Suggest looking through the archives. Andrew