From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-35697-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9423 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2004 03:41:49 -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 9415 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 03:41:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 03:41:48 -0000
Received: from zaretski (pns03-202-208.inter.net.il [80.230.202.208])
	by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR)
	with ESMTP id DUD68748 (AUTH halo1);
	Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:40:59 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:41:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Message-ID: <01c4961e$Blat.v2.2.2$d00fd3e0@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20040908152315.GA28927@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel
	Jacobowitz on Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:23:15 -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$23f700a0@zahav.net.il> <413F170A.2070005@gnu.org> <01c495b7$Blat.v2.2.2$1f83c660@zahav.net.il> <20040908152315.GA28927@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:23:15 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Why should the macro matter for remote targets?  We should ask the
> target whether watchpoints are available.

So you are suggesting to replace a configure-time test and the macro
with a run-time test?

> For cross-compiled build, autoconf should work just fine.  Compile
> tests are still available and you shouldn't be using run tests for this
> sort of thing anyway.

I don't think this kind of test can be done by compiling a program,
but if you have a specific test in mind, please describe it.

In any case, if what you suggest works, I agree to replacing the macro
with these alternatives.