From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11367 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2004 18:52:28 -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 11358 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 18:52:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 18:52:27 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.141.72]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id DUE27226 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:51:51 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:52:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-ID: <01c4969e$Blat.v2.2.2$0e5a13c0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040909124755.GA8559@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:47:56 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$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$d00fd3e0@zahav.net.il> <20040909035336.GA30215@nevyn.them.org> <01c49621$Blat.v2.2.2$eb2d05a0@zahav.net.il> <20040909124755.GA8559@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:47:56 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > 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 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.