From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:52:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c4969e$Blat.v2.2.2$0e5a13c0@zahav.net.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040909124755.GA8559@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:47:56 -0400)
> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:47:56 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> > 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.
>
> There's nothing generic controlled by TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS.
> It controls an include of <sys/debugreg.h> in i386v-nat.c - that can be
> autoconf'd, and then checked for the appropriate DR_* constants if
> that's necessary. It controls the use of prwatch_t in procfs.c,
> likewise.
I'm not sure the mere presence of DR_* automatically means that
hardware watchpoints are supported at run time. I'd prefer to hear
that from Mark or someone else who could tell for sure.
In any case, if the above is true, then there should be no problem to
write an Autoconf test that would replace
TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS. As soon as that is posted here, I
will withdraw all my objections to removing the old macro in favor of
the new mechanism.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-09 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-05 13:59 Andrew Cagney
2004-09-06 5:03 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-06 14:05 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-06 18:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-07 21:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-08 3:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-08 14:28 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-08 15:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-08 15:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-09-09 3:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-09 3:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-09-09 4:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-09 12:47 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-09-09 18:52 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2004-09-12 16:33 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-12 18:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-13 14:30 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-13 19:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-13 20:48 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-15 7:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-09-15 16:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-16 10:53 ` Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='01c4969e$Blat.v2.2.2$0e5a13c0@zahav.net.il' \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox