On 5 October 2014 23:07, Michael Walle <mich...@walle.cc> wrote: > 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)
Thanks to all for review/testing; applied to master. -- PMM
