From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31748 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2004 18:47:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31741 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 18:47:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 18:47:20 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-208-13.inter.net.il [80.230.208.13]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CME89063 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:47:03 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:47:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c49441$Blat.v2.2.2$ead61420@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:05:02 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <413B1435.3020102@gnu.org> <01c493ce$Blat.v2.2.2$e86fbec0@zahav.net.il> <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00104.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:05:02 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > I'll clarify the comments so that it is clear that: > > - it is native only > > - in all likelyhood all applicable current systems support this > mechanism so no autoconf test is needed (someone needs to do a proper > analysis) > > - its a configuration change, possibly involving an autoconf test Sorry, I'm confused: what will a non-native port do to support both targets that have hardware watchpoints and those which do not? Or are you saying that _all_ targets have hardware watchpoint support now (which I think is not true)? > > In any case, I'd like to see the suggested Autoconf replacement for > > this before we deprecate the feature. > > This is neither deprecating a feature, nor deprecating a system. ``The feature'' in question is TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS. It is being deprecated/removed, isn't it?