From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-52332-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19196 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2007 16:14:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 19185 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2007 16:14:11 -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 16:13:58 +0000
Received: from ICSMULLER (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) 	by ics.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C8E18701A; 	Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:18:28 +0100 (CET)
From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
To: "'Vladimir Prus'" <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Cc: <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
References: <200711231623.04823.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <fi6qus$a7v$1@ger.gmane.org> <006001c82de7$60649940$212dcbc0$@u-strasbg.fr> <200711231851.47586.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200711231851.47586.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Subject: RE: [RFA] Clarify infrun variable naming.
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:14:00 -0000
Message-ID: <006101c82deb$e62d1da0$b28758e0$@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/msg00428.txt.bz2

> Yes. What I mean is that there are two situations now:
> 
> 1. When we step over breakpoint, we disable everything, including
> watchpoints.
> 2. When we hit watchpoint, and the PC is at the instruction itself, we
> disable
> all breakpoints and watchpoints when stepping.
> 
> (2) might not be a problem now, but if we wish to interact with one
> thread,
> while others are running, it might become a problem -- other threads
> might miss unrelated breakpoints and watchpoints. So, we need to:
> 
>    - Remove breakpoints at current PC
>    - Remove watchpoint a the address being accessed
>    - Single step
> 
> I suspect you was more interested in (1), but that's basically two
> sides
> of the coin.

  Yes, but this scheme should indeed also work to resolve the
watchpoint miss of gdb/38.
  About Daniel's answer, suggesting to use thread specific
watchpoints, I don't know if thread specific
watchpoints are available on all archs... Which would mean
that both schemes need to be implemented.

Pierre