From patchwork Fri Apr 17 10:45:08 2015 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Pedro Alves X-Patchwork-Id: 6281 Received: (qmail 67656 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2015 10:45:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Delivered-To: mailing list gdb-patches@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 67536 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2015 10:45:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:45:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3HAjR9D005623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:45:28 -0400 Received: from brno.lan (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3HAjMtp009369 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:45:26 -0400 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [PATCH v3 04/17] Make thread_still_needs_step_over consider stepping_over_watchpoint too Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:45:08 +0100 Message-Id: <1429267521-21047-5-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1429267521-21047-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> References: <1429267521-21047-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> I noticed that even though keep_going knows to start a step over for a watchpoint, thread_still_needs_step_over forgets it. gdb/ChangeLog: 2015-04-17 Pedro Alves * infrun.c (thread_still_needs_step_over): Rename to ... (thread_still_needs_step_over_bp): ... this. (enum step_over_what): New. (thread_still_needs_step_over): Reimplement. v3: Add comments to enum values. Changed commit log a bit. --- gdb/infrun.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c index a45877e..534ecef 100644 --- a/gdb/infrun.c +++ b/gdb/infrun.c @@ -1223,6 +1223,19 @@ follow_exec (ptid_t ptid, char *execd_pathname) matically get reset there in the new process.). */ } +/* Bit flags indicating what the thread needs to step over. */ + +enum step_over_what + { + /* Step over a breakpoint. */ + STEP_OVER_BREAKPOINT = 1, + + /* Step past a non-continuable watchpoint, in order to let the + instruction execute so we can evaluate the watchpoint + expression. */ + STEP_OVER_WATCHPOINT = 2 + }; + /* Info about an instruction that is being stepped over. */ struct step_over_info @@ -2519,7 +2532,7 @@ clear_proceed_status (int step) meanwhile, we can skip the whole step-over dance. */ static int -thread_still_needs_step_over (struct thread_info *tp) +thread_still_needs_step_over_bp (struct thread_info *tp) { if (tp->stepping_over_breakpoint) { @@ -2536,6 +2549,26 @@ thread_still_needs_step_over (struct thread_info *tp) return 0; } +/* Check whether thread TP still needs to start a step-over in order + to make progress when resumed. Returns an bitwise or of enum + step_over_what bits, indicating what needs to be stepped over. */ + +static int +thread_still_needs_step_over (struct thread_info *tp) +{ + struct inferior *inf = find_inferior_ptid (tp->ptid); + int what = 0; + + if (thread_still_needs_step_over_bp (tp)) + what |= STEP_OVER_BREAKPOINT; + + if (tp->stepping_over_watchpoint + && !target_have_steppable_watchpoint) + what |= STEP_OVER_WATCHPOINT; + + return what; +} + /* Returns true if scheduler locking applies. STEP indicates whether we're about to do a step/next-like command to a thread. */ @@ -6270,6 +6303,7 @@ keep_going (struct execution_control_state *ecs) struct regcache *regcache = get_current_regcache (); int remove_bp; int remove_wps; + enum step_over_what step_what; /* Either the trap was not expected, but we are continuing anyway (if we got a signal, the user asked it be passed to @@ -6290,10 +6324,11 @@ keep_going (struct execution_control_state *ecs) instruction, and then re-insert the breakpoint when that step is finished. */ + step_what = thread_still_needs_step_over (ecs->event_thread); + remove_bp = (ecs->hit_singlestep_breakpoint - || thread_still_needs_step_over (ecs->event_thread)); - remove_wps = (ecs->event_thread->stepping_over_watchpoint - && !target_have_steppable_watchpoint); + || (step_what & STEP_OVER_BREAKPOINT)); + remove_wps = (step_what & STEP_OVER_WATCHPOINT); /* We can't use displaced stepping if we need to step past a watchpoint. The instruction copied to the scratch pad would