Re: [RFA] Displaced stepping just enable in non-stop mode

[teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 05:15, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
>>> We could also try to detect if it works, and display a warning if we
>>> think it won't (RE the cases you described above).
>>
>> Hmm, that's an interesting idea.  Pedro, what do you think - would
>> autodetection work for the cases we've seen trouble?  Something as
>> simple as "can we write to _start" is probably enough, but I don't
>> remember what the failure looked like with the record target; and in
>> that case it may be complicated by the fact that we're initially going
>> forwards and could write.
>
> What it looks like is that you try to write to memory
> that's write-protected.
>
> This is because most replay targets will treat all of memory
> as write-protected when they are in replay mode.
>
> Where this usually manifests is, you'll say "continue"
> (probably for the first time since attaching to the target),
> and it'll croak because it's trying to step over some
> "invisible" breakpoint such as the one that handles
> shared libraries.
>
>>
>>>> I'm not sure what else to call displaced stepping.  "Step around
>>>> breakpoints"?
>>>
>>> The text mentions "out-of-line stepping", which sounds better to me.
>>
>> I like "set step out-of-line"...
>
> Arr arr...  step up-against-the-wall...
>
>

How about "set step displace"

I think "displace" is clear.