Re: ptrace(2) PT_STEP changes and gdb

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:10:17PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 17:07:14 +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> 
> > Problem is that historically PT_STEP's data argument was ignored and the
> > in-tree gdb has one case where it provides a signal number as data.
> > 
> > What is the best solution? From looking at all the cases, I think the
> > only sane approach is to add a new request PT_LWPSTEP.
> 
> Can't you just version it?  Rename existing PT_STEP to PT_OSTEP or
> something, define PT_STEP with the new value (instead of introducing
> new PT_* name)?

That would be one approach. It would still be leave someone compiling
gdb from source to discover such surprises, but I am not sure if we
care.

Joerg