This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:42:45 -0400
- Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
- References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> When we're stopped at a breakpoint and we want to
> continue in reverse, we're not actually going to
> execute the instruction at the breakpoint -- we're
> going to de-execute the previous instruction.
>
> Therefore there's no need to singlestep before
> inserting breakpoints. In fact it would be a bad
> idea to do so, because if there is a breakpoint at
> the previous instruction, we WANT to hit it.
>
> Note that this patch is to be applied to the reverse branch.
If there is a breakpoint on the previous instruction, will you hit it
before or after de-executing that instruction? It seems like this
logic should be somehow still necessary... but I can't put my finger
on when.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery