Instrcutions that must not be stepped.

[PAUL GILLIAM]

On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 05:41 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: 
> > From: PAUL GILLIAM <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>
> > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:26:01 -0700
 . . . 
> > I have attached two diff's: "change_software_single_step.diff" makes the
> > change I proposed above.
> 
> No you didn't :(.
> 
This time for sure. 

> > I changed the name "software_single_step" to
> > "possibly_single_step_with_software".
> 
> Hmm, I don't really see the benefit of renaming the function.  I mean,
> that name is kinda long, and it means we get the evn longer:
> 
>   set_gdbarch_possibly_single_step_with_software().

Yea, I agree.  The only reason I changed it to to emphasize that
function of the routine has changed a little bit.  When I submit it to
gdb-patches, I think I'll leave the name alone.
> By the way, if stepping these atomic sequences proves to be a
> performance problem, you might want to consider implementing stepping
> them in the (Linux) kernel.

This would be cool.  It would be nice to be able to tell if the kernel
has support for this and let it handle atomic sequences if it does.  Let
GDB handle it if the kernel doesn't.

> 
> Mark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: change_software_single_step.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 33790 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/attachments/20060620/80aa4b64/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ppc-atomic-series.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3421 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/attachments/20060620/80aa4b64/attachment-0001.bin>