On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Michael Schwingen<[email protected]> wrote: > Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Spencer Oliver<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> I got some pointers from Michael Bruck in email and was >>>> able to put together the attached patch w/single stepping >>>> support for arm11 hardware that does not support single >>>> stepping in hardware, e.g. i.MX31. >>>> >>>> Are there any downsides to always simulating the instruction >>>> to calculate next PC and using that as a breakpoint, as oposed >>>> to using the hardware single stepping capability? >>>> >>>> Objections? >>>> >>>> >>> surely we would want to use the hardware single step if available - >>> >> >> Why? That creates an additional code path and is harder to test. >> > Is the simulator 100% correct in all cases? What about swi, exceptions > and other corner cases?
Don't know. I suspect not... There is a command to reenable hardware single stepping, in lieu of a check on whether they are supported this needs to stay around. > I would guess single step to be the better solution if available. > Also, it does not eat up one breakpoint - these can be scarce depending > on hardware, and having one more for real breakpoint usage would be a > real plus. Single stepping does not enable breakpoints. Do you know how to add a check if hardware breakpoints are available? -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://www.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
