This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[PATCH v2 1/8] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:54:11 +0100
- Subject: [PATCH v2 1/8] Decide whether we may have removed breakpoints based on step_over_info
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1412344458-31774-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com>
... instead of trap_expected.
Gets rid of one singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p reference, and is
generally more to the point.
gdb/
2014-10-03 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* infrun.c (step_over_info_valid_p): New function.
(resume): Use step_over_info_valid_p instead of checking the
threads's trap_expected flag.
---
gdb/infrun.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c
index 8137eb3..9875183 100644
--- a/gdb/infrun.c
+++ b/gdb/infrun.c
@@ -1279,6 +1279,14 @@ stepping_past_instruction_at (struct address_space *aspace,
step_over_info.address));
}
+/* Returns true if step-over info is valid. */
+
+static int
+step_over_info_valid_p (void)
+{
+ return (step_over_info.aspace != NULL);
+}
+
/* Displaced stepping. */
@@ -2144,7 +2152,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to continue execution."));
once we arrive back at the step-resume breakpoint, actually step
over the breakpoint we originally wanted to step over. */
if (singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p
- && tp->control.trap_expected && sig != GDB_SIGNAL_0)
+ && sig != GDB_SIGNAL_0
+ && step_over_info_valid_p ())
{
/* If we have nested signals or a pending signal is delivered
immediately after a handler returns, might might already have
@@ -2238,13 +2247,10 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to continue execution."));
tp->suspend.stop_signal = GDB_SIGNAL_0;
/* Advise target which signals may be handled silently. If we have
- removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one (which can
- happen only if we are not using displaced stepping), we need to
- receive all signals to avoid accidentally skipping a breakpoint
- during execution of a signal handler. */
- if ((step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)
- && tp->control.trap_expected
- && !use_displaced_stepping (gdbarch))
+ removed breakpoints because we are stepping over one (in any
+ thread), we need to receive all signals to avoid accidentally
+ skipping a breakpoint during execution of a signal handler. */
+ if (step_over_info_valid_p ())
target_pass_signals (0, NULL);
else
target_pass_signals ((int) GDB_SIGNAL_LAST, signal_pass);
--
1.9.3