From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JPKKv-0006Gs-LZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:53 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JPKKt-0006F9-WD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JPKKt-0006Es-NA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:51 -0500
Received: from nan.false.org ([208.75.86.248])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <drow@false.org>) id 1JPKKt-0007v7-Dx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:51 -0500
Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA48D9811F
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:19:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55])
	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EC798118
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:19:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <drow@caradoc.them.org>) id 1JPKKr-0007Y2-Ia
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:49 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:19:49 -0500
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][Qemu-devel] Single stepping for PPC broken!
Message-ID: <20080213161949.GA28786@caradoc.them.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801090849090.6836@localhost>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0801091312170.24129@localhost>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0801101454460.20346@localhost>
	<200802111722.50517.rob@landley.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0802130939190.6152@localhost>
	<20080213134406.GA19391@caradoc.them.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0802131649380.8394@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802131649380.8394@localhost>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:52:22PM +0100, Marius Groeger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:46:44AM +0100, Marius Groeger wrote:
> > >   if ((tb->pc & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) == (dest & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) &&
> > >      !ctx->singlestep_enabled) {

> > No, if you've gone to a different page without single step then you
> > don't need the debug trap.
> 
> Hm, so you mean betweeen the first "if .. !ctx->singlestep_enabled" 
> and the second one in the evaluation of ctx->singlestep_enabled 
> changes? What I meant is simply that the "else" clause already implies 
> that ctx->singlestep_enabled is true.

No it doesn't.

if (A && !B) {
   ...
} else {
   ...
}

The else block will be entered if !A, or if A && B.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery