From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-52329-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1376 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2007 15:41:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 1367 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2007 15:41:42 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from ics.u-strasbg.fr (HELO ics.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:41:36 +0000
Received: from ICSMULLER (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) 	by ics.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B77C187024; 	Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:46:06 +0100 (CET)
From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
To: "'Vladimir Prus'" <ghost@cs.msu.su>, 	<gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
References:  <200711231623.04823.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <005c01c82de0$9400be20$bc023a60$@u-strasbg.fr>  <fi6qus$a7v$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To:  <fi6qus$a7v$1@ger.gmane.org>
Subject: RE: [RFA] Clarify infrun variable naming.
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:41:00 -0000
Message-ID: <006001c82de7$60649940$212dcbc0$@u-strasbg.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: en-us
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2

> >   But this is the reason of the failure to catch watchpoints
> > that happen at the point where we are just stepping over a
> breakpoint,
> > because we step with the watchpoints disabled.
> >   Why don't we enable all break- and watchpoints but the
> > ones that do have the same PC we are currently?
> 
> Because that's extra work, and I haven't got around to that yet ;-)
> In case of watchpoints, you probably meant enabling all watchpoint
> at different data address, not PC?
  Stepping over watchpoint is architechture dependent, 
for i386 this is not needed as the watchpoint is generated with PC 
at the instruction after the one that triggered the watchpoint... 
> 
> >   Enabling at least all watchpoints would fix gdb/38 failure as
> > seen in gdb.base/watchpoint.exp where it is noted as a KFAIL.
> >
> >   I tried to check this by adding a insert_watchpoint function
> > a few days ago, but if you are working on it anyhow,
> > and probably master this much better than I do, it would be
> > great to solve that issue at the same time.
> 
> I plan to address this soon (but as a separate patch).
Great news,
thanks Volodya!

Pierre