From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29858 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2009 23:20:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 29849 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2009 23:20:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (HELO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.200.156) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:20:16 +0000 Received: from baal.u-strasbg.fr (baal.u-strasbg.fr [IPv6:2001:660:2402::41]) by mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.2/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id n5GNK5QW056239 ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:20:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (ms2.u-strasbg.fr [IPv6:2001:660:2402:d::11]) by baal.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.0/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id n5GNK567061680 ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:20:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr) Received: from d620muller (lec67-4-82-230-53-140.fbx.proxad.net [82.230.53.140]) (user=mullerp mech=LOGIN) by mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id n5GNK42j029418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:20:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr) From: "Pierre Muller" To: "'Pedro Alves'" Cc: , "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <001401c9de9f$928b9f80$b7a2de80$@u-strasbg.fr> <006f01c9e854$7295da10$57c18e30$@u-strasbg.fr> <000001c9eed3$0e883f10$2b98bd30$@u-strasbg.fr> <200906162359.43456.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200906162359.43456.pedro@codesourcery.com> Subject: RE: [PING][RFA-v2] Fix troubles with watchpoints in DJGPP Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000601c9eed8$fcfaa0c0$f6efe240$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 Would this be OK then? Pierre PS: It could be optimized in the sense that it should only be called if it has not been called yet. 2009-06-17 Pierre Muller * infcmd.c (post_create_inferior): Call breakpoint_re_set after target is pushed for watchpoint promotion to hardware watchpoint. Index: src/gdb/infcmd.c =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infcmd.c,v retrieving revision 1.245 diff -u -p -r1.245 infcmd.c --- src/gdb/infcmd.c 7 Jun 2009 16:46:48 -0000 1.245 +++ src/gdb/infcmd.c 8 Jun 2009 07:29:43 -0000 @@ -421,6 +421,13 @@ post_create_inferior (struct target_ops=20 #endif } =20 + /* On systems that load no shared libraries, like DJGPP target, + breakpoint_re_set is never called. + Call it now so that ordinary watchpoints get a chance to + become promoted to hardware watchpoints if the pushed target + supports hardware watchpoints. */ + breakpoint_re_set (); + observer_notify_inferior_created (target, from_tty); } =20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches- > owner@sourceware.org] De la part de Pedro Alves > Envoy=E9=A0: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:00 AM > =C0=A0: Pierre Muller > Cc=A0: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; 'Eli Zaretskii' > Objet=A0: Re: [PING][RFA-v2] Fix troubles with watchpoints in DJGPP >=20 > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 23:37:38, Pierre Muller wrote: > > > > No one reacted to this second version of my patch... >=20 > My reaction was that the patch looked OK, > but please could you expand the comment some more to > explain a bit better why we need this: >=20 > + /* Call breakpoint_re_set to update watchpoints types. */ > + breakpoint_re_set (); >=20 > This almost looks like: >=20 > + /* Increment variable by one. */ > + i++; >=20 > ;-) >=20 > breakpoint_re_set is very likely to be something we > will be wanting to split further, make smarter and/or > eliminate, so having its non-obvious uses nicely described > is a good thing, IMO. >=20 > > I still have other hardware watchpoint related problems > > that need to be discussed, but this one is really a small patch, > > no ? >=20 > -- > Pedro Alves