This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole.
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Emi SUZUKI <emi-suzuki at tjsys dot co dot jp>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 07:24:36 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole.
- References: <20070228.170713.193706115.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> <20070228114545.GB4620@caradoc.them.org> <1172678940.20041.13.camel@localhost> <20070302.214729.183026252.emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> <jeps7m3ad6.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:00:21PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Emi SUZUKI <emi-suzuki@tjsys.co.jp> writes:
>
> > + /* Assume that the atomic sequence ends with a stwcx instruction
> > + followed by a conditional branch instruction. */
> > + if ((insn & STWCX_MASK) != STWCX_INSTRUCTION)
> > + error (_("Tried to step over an atomic sequence of instructions but could not find the end of the sequence."));
>
> I don't think error should be called here. It would probably be better to
> just continue with the normal single-step here.
Maybe a (once-only) warning? It would be nice to let the user know
we're confused.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery