From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19191 invoked by alias); 28 May 2010 16:12:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 19168 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2010 16:12:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f175.google.com) (209.85.212.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 May 2010 16:11:56 +0000 Received: by pxi14 with SMTP id 14so614770pxi.20 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 09:11:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.6.35 with SMTP id 35mr360438wff.79.1275062617292; Fri, 28 May 2010 09:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.232.6 with HTTP; Fri, 28 May 2010 09:03:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100528155817.GF25135@redhat.com> References: <20100528155817.GF25135@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Problem Halting Execution From: Joseph Altmaier To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: sid@sources.redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00004.txt.bz2 I'm trying to hand control to GDB. I have looked at other ports and I have not seen where they do this, but I must have missed something. Joseph On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > >> I'm writing a SID port, and I can't get it to halt properly. > > What kind of halt do you want exactly? =C2=A0A simulator termination? > Handing of control to gdb? > >> What is the functionality of yield()?=EF=BF=BD 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 >