From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21932 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2004 04:04:05 -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 21910 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 04:04:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 04:04:03 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-202-208.inter.net.il [80.230.202.208]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CMU96679 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 07:03:18 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:04:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-ID: <01c49621$Blat.v2.2.2$eb2d05a0@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: <20040909035336.GA30215@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:53:37 -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> <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$1f83c660@zahav.net.il> <20040908152315.GA28927@nevyn.them.org> <01c4961e$Blat.v2.2.2$d00fd3e0@zahav.net.il> <20040909035336.GA30215@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:53:37 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > 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. > > There are two cases: > - If we enabled support, GDB could not be compiled. This is amenable > to compile tests. > - If we enabled support, it would not work at runtime. This is > amenable only to runtime tests - either run during configure or run > during execution. I strongly believe the former are wrong in all > but exceptional cases. I understand the theory, I just don't know how to test for watchpoint support in a program by just compiling it. If you can suggest a program whose compilation will reveal that, please do.