This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] This patch fixes GDBServer's run control for single stepping
- From: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>
- To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:54:30 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] This patch fixes GDBServer's run control for single stepping
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;sourceware.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
- References: <20161129120702.9490-1-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <20170127150139.GB24676@E107787-LIN> <wwokwpdg5vxa.fsf@ericsson.com> <CAH=s-PP-i3v_Fr=QeWt9BQeJzjCHtW79nGYpJ9hF-Bb=OBo89Q@mail.gmail.com> <wwokr33o5pkb.fsf@ericsson.com> <CAH=s-PO98nCE4UB9ag+V=M2mBnZT0FOeHV3d7mFMLYe1+v=mFg@mail.gmail.com> <wwok8tps8yo2.fsf@ericsson.com> <2255ed6f-a146-026c-f871-00e9a33dfcf0@redhat.com> <wwokwpcp7fvn.fsf@ericsson.com> <b5fb81d1-66fc-68c2-9785-ffa487de59e0@redhat.com> <wwoktw7t7bzy.fsf@ericsson.com> <CAH=s-PPx+SjoE0DkTKKNqg4Dr4zHFNt6QeC-XXT_LoXVh004iw@mail.gmail.com> <wwokh93s1he3.fsf@ericsson.com> <CAH=s-PPrB=s6d9Q07W=-b8Sz9umh6_Lj24PyO4x99Z3QrtfmzQ@mail.gmail.com> <wwokzig4l0i1.fsf@ericsson.com> <wwoky3vokwai.fsf@ericsson.com>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
Antoine Tremblay writes:
>> Consider if current PC is the IT instruction for example, then there's
>> at least 2 next pcs inside the IT block where we will need to install an THUMB2
>> breakpoint and get_next_pcs will return that.
Oops please read that "Consider if the current instruction is the CMP instruction
before an IT instruction...."
Basically so that we get into the arm-get-next-pcs.c:351 case... in fact
now that I think of it maybe that would be OK if I were to add that check in
breakpoint_kind_from_current_state also but the previous comments still
apply about the possibly hackish state of this..
Thanks,
Antoine