This is the mail archive of the
frysk@sourceware.org
mailing list for the frysk project.
Re: frysk-core/frysk/proc Breakpoint.java IsaIA32. ...
- From: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
- To: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>
- Cc: frysk at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:07:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: frysk-core/frysk/proc Breakpoint.java IsaIA32. ...
- References: <20070115134847.31787.qmail@sourceware.org> <46CC5226.8040607@redhat.com>
Hi Phil,
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 10:11 -0500, Phil Muldoon wrote:
> > Fixes bug #3676
> > * Breakpoint.java (stepDone): Only set if still installed.
> > (isInstalled): new method.
> > (toString): Prettify.
> > * IsaIA32.java (isTaskStepped): Reset flag.
> > * IsaX8664.java (isTaskStepped): Likewise.
> >
> As we talked about on irc, and in addition to looking at this code in
> preparation for hardware watchpoints, can I make a small recommendation
> here?
>
> isTaskStepped(task) is a query, and should imo not be altering any debug
> registers after the fact.
>
> Can I propose a split into:
>
> isTaskStepped(task) and setTaskStepped(task)
>
> Does that make better sense?
That does make sense. Although I don't know if someone really needs
setTaskStepped(), so I wouldn't introduce it unless there was a real
usage for it. The reason why the flag is reset here is mentioned in the
original patch email:
http://sourceware.org/ml/frysk/2007-q1/msg00024.html
> There is one thing that changed in the semantics of Isa.isTaskStepped()
> for x86 and x86_64 (and Ia32On64 has been added). That is that the
> stepping flag in the d6 register is being reset because "[the d6]
> register is never cleared by the processor and must be cleared by
> software after the contents have been read". This means that we are now
> doing a inferior visible change, but I don't see any way to get around
> this. If the inferior would be using instruction stepping itself there
> would be all kinds of interesting issues anyway.
I do agree this might not be the most ideal place to reset this flag
though. Maybe it should be moved into LinuxTask.sendContinue()?
Cheers,
Mark