This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable range stepping for ARM on GDBServer
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 16:59:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Enable range stepping for ARM on GDBServer
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 09/01/2016 04:21 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
> Pedro Alves writes:
>> On 08/31/2016 08:14 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>>> I'm sorry I can't be more helpful at the moment but I wanted to post
>>> this issue before I have to leave for a while.
>> Understood. Does enabling range stepping unblock something else?
> It would unblock ARM tracepoints, as per Yao's requirements...
Tracepoints make gdbserver single-step and then not report the event
to gdb, so I do see the parallel with range-stepping. Throwing
while-stepping into the equation would make it even more clear.
But maybe we can paralyze? If enabling tracepoints without range
stepping causes no known regression, but enabling range stepping with
no tracepoints causes regressions, seems to me like we could put
tracepoints in first, and fix whatever range stepping problems
Skipping the test sounds far from ideal to me, since the test has a
tendency of catching problems. Witness patch 1/2 in this very
series, for example...