This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: stepping over permanent breakpoint steps one instruction too much? (Re: diffgdbdaymail 20141029)


Hi,

Closing the loop here,

On 11/03/2014 12:20 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:

>>> #gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp
>>>  Running gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp ...
>>>  PASS: gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp: Stop at the 'standard' start breakpoint (fetching esp).
>>>  PASS: gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp: Stop at permanent breakpoint.
>>> -PASS: gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp: Single stepping past permanent breakpoint.
>>> -PASS: gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp: ESP value does not match - step_permanent_breakpoint wrong.
>>> +FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp: Single stepping past permanent breakpoint. (GDB internal error)
>>> +FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-bp_permanent.exp: ESP value does not match - step_permanent_breakpoint wrong.
>>
>> Mine.  The test is skipped on 64-bit, and seems like I missed the case
>> of stepping permanent breakpoints.

...

> I would instead expect that a stepi at 0x0804848c stops at 0x0804848d,
> _before_ the "leave" is executed.

...

> I'm working on fixing GDB in the direction of stepi stopping before
> the "leave" is executed.  Does anyone have a different opinion
> on how GDB should behave?

This is now fixed/done on mainline.

https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-11/msg00075.html

Thanks,
Pedro Alves


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]