Am Sonntag, 5. Oktober 2014, 22:48:05 schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 5 October 2014 22:36, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 5 October 2014 22:00, Michael Walle <mich...@walle.cc> wrote: > >> I can confirm that your patch makes qemu stop one instruction earlier. > >> Without your patch the program is stopped at (3). With your patch > >> applied the program is stopped at (2). But I guess the correct point to > >> stop is (1), right?> > > No, gdb wants execution to stop with the PC just after the > > instruction which issued the memory access, with whatever > > effects the instruction had having already taken place. > > So (2) is correct. (I think nicer UI would indeed be to > > stop at (1) but you can't get that effect on CPUs like > > x86 which only stop after the wp insn has executed, and > > they'd rather be consistent.) > > ...and incidentally the way it achieves this for "stop before > wp insn" CPU targets is that it unsets the watchpoint > and automatically steps one instruction before returning > control to the gdb user. (You can see this if you turn > gdb's remote-protocol debug on.)
Ah, now it makes sense :) Tested-by: Michael Walle <mich...@walle.cc> (for lm32) -- -michael
