This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@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: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:05:25PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
If there is a breakpoint on the previous instruction, will you hit it
before or after de-executing that instruction?
Well, if trap insns are in place, that's what will be
executed (not the shadow insn).

Presumably it'd be a hardware breakpoint. Software breakpoints in reverse execution seem... awkward.

Right. I've just been re-thinking the issue.


I don't know how it might work with SW bp, but the three
implementations that I know of right now all use HW bps.

In that case, the target just has to guarantee to un-execute
the instruction before stopping, and then everything will be
OK.

I posted some tests, those all work, but I will go ahead
and try to port (and post) the consecutive.exp test anyway.


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