This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] Disable [eE] packets by default
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:23:49 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Disable [eE] packets by default
- References: <3C79867F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3C798723.4D4B@redhat.com>
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> This is a followup to the current discussion regarding the [Ee] packets.
>> It disables them by default.
>> While it is a brutal solution to a problem, it is also 6 days before 5.2
>> branches. It also clears the slate for another attempt at this.
> I think this is the right thing to do. Previously we had
> no way to test the 'e' packet. Now that we do have, it is
> seen to be buggy. This is like an unreliable optimization.
> You can give the user the opportunity to use it if he chooses,
> but you don't turn it on by default.
It is in. We're now free to figure out how to really make this work :-)
> I would like to start discussing the right way to implement this.
> For one thing, the current implementation has remote.c snatching
> control away from infrun, and doing something completely
> different from what infrun asked it to do. I'd like to have
> the decision about whether to use step-over-range made in
> infrun, not in the target layer.
Yes, definitly. I suspect step-out-of-range is a special case of step.
I think the decision to try to use both should be made by infrun.c.
As RichardE recently re-discovered, the way single-step is structured is
similarly wierd. Fortunatly the consequences are not so bad.