From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:32:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from p508B7EE4.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.126.228]:49083 "EHLO dea.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:32:41 +0100 Received: from dea.linux-mips.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h54EWXbY007586; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:32:34 -0700 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h54EWWwH007561; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:32:32 +0200 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:32:32 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , "Krishnakumar. R" , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Single stepping in mips Message-ID: <20030604143232.GF25456@linux-mips.org> References: <20030604055319.GB8778@linux-mips.org> <20030604142548.GA19282@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030604142548.GA19282@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 2520 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:25:48AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > In a more finegrained but also more complicated example, you probably > > want to insert a breakpoint in the delay slot first and at the second step > > evaluate the branch's condition and put a breakpoint at the next > > instruction to be executed. I'm not sure if the current version of gdb > > does the first step, but it inserts a single breakpoint in the second one > > only. For branch likely instructions adjust the two steps as necessary. > > Does that actually work reliably across MIPS processors? I don't > believe that it will. I suppose you could re-execute the branch to get > the delay slot executed... It should. Ralf