Hi,

At Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:47:07 +0200,
Karl Janmar wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yeah you are right that GDB is doing the write of undefined instruction 
> when it discover that our gdb-stub doesn't handle Z0 (breakpoint).
> But then when it continue past a breakpoint or gdb issue a 's' (single 
> step command) our gdb-stub needs to handle a single step. It's actually 
> very close from doing that. This can be fixed either by apply the patch 
> I provided in the first post or something more elaborated, like to have 
> db_set_single_step() differ if we are calling from ddb or kgdb?
> 

  I've checked with -current as of 2005-Mar-25, and found  KGDB's
single step is functional.  I didn't see GDB's issuing 's' command to
our stub.  I don't think I clearly understand the situation GDB needs
's' command, but it's not bad to support it and Karl's patch looks
good to me, so I want to commit it unless there's any objection.

BR,

--
bsh.