This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: revised implementation of permanent breakpoints
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb AT cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFA: revised implementation of permanent breakpoints
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 AT cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:55:42 +1000
- CC: Michael Snyder <msnyder AT cygnus dot com>, Jim Ingham <jingham AT cygnus dot com>, Stan Shebs <shebs AT cygnus dot com>, gdb-patches AT sourceware.cygnus dot com
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions
- References: <199909131817.NAA03359@zwingli.cygnus.com>
Jim Blandy wrote:
> + @item SKIP_PERMANENT_BREAKPOINT
> + Step the inferior past a permanent breakpoint. GDB normally steps over
> + a breakpoint by removing it, stepping one instruction, and re-inserting
> + the breakpoint. However, permanent breakpoints are hardwired into the
> + inferior, and can't be removed, so this strategy doesn't work. Calling
> + SKIP_PERMANENT_BREAKPOINT adjusts the processor's state so that
> + execution will resume just after the breakpoint. This macro does the
> + right thing even when the breakpoint is in the delay slot of a branch or
> + jump.
> +
Could I suggest adjusting the opening line so that it doesn't mention
the word ``step''? Perhaps something like ``Adjust the target state so
that execution is resumed just after the permanent breakpoint
instruction''. As you go on to explain, ``step'' in the traditional GDB
speak has many other connotations.
enjoy,
Andrew