This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: STEP_SKIPS_DELAY question, sort of
Andrew Cagney wrote:
If the:
>> breakpoint_here_p (read_pc () - 2)
and
>> breakpoint_here_p (read_pc () + 4)
logic is moved to the per-architecture STEP_SKIPS_DELAY I don't think
DELAY_SIZE is needed.
I also think this needs a new macro name that better reflects what the
test is doing. But I've no good ideas :-/ (SINGLE_STEP_THROUGH_DELAY
(pc)?)
SINGLE_STEP_THROUGH_DELAY sounds fine to me.
Can a simple, separate, more explicit logic like:
if (we just did a step and STEP_SKIPS_DELAY (pc))
set up for another step
return;
work? The [handle_inferior_event patch snipped] was nested within other
logic and that's not good from a readability / maintainability point of
view.
Agreed; it wasn't clear from the context where I put the patch why it was there.
I'll come back with a proper patch once I've gotten around to do some more
serious testing.
--
Orjan Friberg
Axis Communications