Re: ptrace(2) PT_STEP changes and gdb

[Paul Koning <paul_koning%dell.com@localhost>]

On Aug 17, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:04:14PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>> Yes, one could implement a completely new set of ptrace-like functions
>> along the lines you describe.  It would have to be a new syscall
>> because what you describe isn't ptrace, though it looks a bit like it.
> 
> I don't see why it is not ptrace. It adds a proper stop interface and it
> splits up an operation that was merged before, but it follows the same
> design core.

Unless you keep the existing clutter around the PT_CONTINUE arguments (new PC 
unless 1 is supplied, signal unless 0 is supplied) and similar composites in 
other places, it would not be an upward compatible extension.  And if you do 
keep them, then the core is still messy, though you have wrapped a prettier 
wrapper around it.

        paul