This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record
- From: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: ping huang <harderock at gmail dot com>, shuchang zhou <shuchang dot zhou at gmail dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, paawan oza <paawan1982 at yahoo dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:28:40 +0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record
- References: <daef60380912180021h5d029e55k7dc4e3f4c8d33b36@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin8YlU8tJyWj8ji-FOwANvJZxagchVvMVnGT8kN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimkYn0XfpHHgcrOJItxlRwro9cpD4OhMJfxQ6YF@mail.gmail.com> <201006111455.36401.pedro@codesourcery.com>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 21:55, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi Hui,
>
>> 3. ?Ping got some gdb_assert in sometime. ?And I am not close to his
>> board. ?So I didn't know what happen. ?So I add following:
>> @@ -1534,7 +1535,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to con
>> ? ? ? ?/* If STEP is set, it's a request to use hardware stepping
>> ? ? ? ?facilities. ?But in that case, we should never
>> ? ? ? ?use singlestep breakpoint. ?*/
>> - ? ? ?gdb_assert (!(singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
>> + ? ? ?gdb_assert (!(execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?&& singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
>>
>> The lost one still need be test.
>
> I'm felling a bit dense, and I don't see what is that actually
> catching. ?If going backwards, the assertion always ends up
> evaled as true, nomatter if sofware single-steps are inserted
> or not, or whether `step' is set. ?Did you mean to assert
> that when going backwards, there shouldn't ever be software
> single-step breakpoints inserted?
>
> This patch is okay otherwise. ?Thanks.
>
> --
Thanks Pedro.
I was also confused by this issue too. I thought it will never happen
too. But Ping said he got this issue. And I didn't have the risc
board to test. So I gived up and put this patch to him.
So I think this patch is not very hurry to checked in until some one
post a risc prec support patch. At that time, I will make this issue
clear.
Best regards,
Hui