From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (IDENT:qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA15671 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:23:22 -0700 From: Stan Sieler Message-Id: <200011200724.XAA07561@opus.allegro.com> Subject: Re: Single-stepping To: alan@linuxcare.com.au (Alan Modra) Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:24:00 -0800 (PST) Cc: jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com (John Marvin), parisc-linux@puffin.external.hp.com, parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com In-Reply-To: from "Alan Modra" at Nov 20, 2000 05:53:18 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-ID: Re: > handlers you mention below. Maybe using the recovery counter isn't such a quite true. > bad idea after all, especially since the added syscall and task switch > overhead can be quite small if the kernel only supports single-step by > one instruction. why the limit? We've used multi-instruction "single step" (oxymoron :) for about 15 years on PA-RISC...no problems, efficient, and *very* useful! -- Stan Sieler sieler@allegro.com www.allegro.com/sieler/wanted/index.html www.sieler.com