From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-35688-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 28853 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2004 15:18:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 28842 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 15:18:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 15:18:49 -0000
Received: from zaretski ([80.230.146.142])
	by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR)
	with ESMTP id CMS21036 (AUTH halo1);
	Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:18:42 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:18:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <01c495b7$Blat.v2.2.2$1f83c660@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <413F170A.2070005@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 08
	Sep 2004 10:28:26 -0400)
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <413B1435.3020102@gnu.org> <01c493ce$Blat.v2.2.2$e86fbec0@zahav.net.il> <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$Blat.v2.2.2$ead61420@zahav.net.il> <413E25F6.7020908@gnu.org> <01c49557$Blat.v2.2.2$23f700a0@zahav.net.il> <413F170A.2070005@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:28:26 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Can you give an example - a target with no watchpoint support that no 
> longer builds due to my patch?

I don't think it is my job to find such a target.  Rather, it is up to
you to prove that no target will ever need that.

Anyway, I don't think this kind of approach to our argument is
productive.  I suggest that we instead concentrate on finding an
alternative machinery to compute TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS at
configure time.

How about this: for a cross-compiled build or for remote targets, add
a switch to the configure script, say --without-hw-watchpoints, that
will set TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS so as to disable hardware
watchpoint support; for native and non-cross builds, add an autoconf
test that will do that automatically?