This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [RFA] Clarify infrun variable naming.
- From: "Pierre Muller" <muller at ics dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- To: "'Vladimir Prus'" <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>, <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:53:15 +0100
- Subject: RE: [RFA] Clarify infrun variable naming.
- References: <200711231623.04823.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> + If we hit a breakpoint or watchpoint, and then continue,
> + we need to single step the current thread with breakpoints
> + disabled, so that to avoid hitting the same breakpoint or
> + watchpoint again. And we should step just a single
> + thread and keep other threads stopped, so that
> + other threads don't miss breakpoints while they are removed.
> +
> + So, this variable simultaneously means that we need to single
> + step current thread, keep other threads stopped, and that
> + breakpoints should be removed while we step.
But this is the reason of the failure to catch watchpoints
that happen at the point where we are just stepping over a breakpoint,
because we step with the watchpoints disabled.
Why don't we enable all break- and watchpoints but the
ones that do have the same PC we are currently?
Enabling at least all watchpoints would fix gdb/38 failure as
seen in gdb.base/watchpoint.exp where it is noted as a KFAIL.
I tried to check this by adding a insert_watchpoint function
a few days ago, but if you are working on it anyhow,
and probably master this much better than I do, it would be
great to solve that issue at the same time.
Pierre