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: [PATCH 4/7] range stepping: gdb


On 05/15/2013 02:31 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
This is problematic.  It's better to_not_  have target itself decide
when to range step or to single step, and peeking at "infrun-owned"
variables.  For example, with software watchpoints, GDB needs to have control
of single-steps, in order to evaluate the watchpoints at after each
instruction is executed, so trap_expected isn't enough.  (My v3 adds a test for
that, that v2 fails.)

I didn't take software watchpoint into account in V2, so probably some problems there.

I dislike the design of using PC checks here too :-/.  That
seems fragile, and potentially inefficient (considering GDB ever
sending more than one range action per packet, that might end up
fetching registers for threads unnecessarily).  IMO, it's better to have

Sorry, I don't understand why it is inefficient.

--
Yao (éå)


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