This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] set/show enable-software-singlestep
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro_alves at portugalmail dot pt>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at specifix dot com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:07:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA] set/show enable-software-singlestep
- References: <1214331534.3601.1211.camel@localhost.localdomain>
A Tuesday 24 June 2008 19:18:54, Michael Snyder wrote:
> There may be cases where gdb would be inclined to use
> software singlestep, but you might not want it to. Examples:
I understand you want this for reverse debugging, so let me ask:
> * "target remote" to a target such as a simulator that
> would be able to support normal singlestep.
Should the support be reported by the stub instead?, as in:
Can the target (stub/debug api) do single-stepping? Yes, cool.
No? Bummer, will have to do software-singlestepping
on the GDB's side.
E.g, another similar issue with displaced stepping:
(hey you just touched that option :-) )
I'm working with a target that supports stepping
off breakpoints on the stub side. I was thinking of:
Can the target (stub/debug api) step over breakpoints for me?
Yes, cool. No? Bummer, will have to do displaced-stepping
on the GDB's side.
> * reverse debugging, where you can't predict the
> "come-from" address of a jump instruction.
Should software-singlestepping *always* be disabled
while doing a reverse debug? If so, why do we need the
command? Shouldn't it be enforced in the code?
--
Pedro Alves