From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c498f8$Blat.v2.2.2$2c6144e0@zahav.net.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <414479DB.4090207@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:31:23 -0400)
> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:31:23 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> > 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.
>
> This assumes that we've access to machines to test it on, and the code
> being modified is even being used / worth retaining. Resolving both of
> those takes this from a no-problem task to something best handled
> separatly, and something that should not block this current patch.
Sorry, the person who wants to submit a patch for inclusion should do
the necessary reasearch required to verify that the patch is doing
TRT. Saying that this makes an easy job somewhat harder does not
change anything, I'm sure you've requested other contributors to do
the same in the past, and rightly so.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-12 18:42 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
2004-09-12 16:33 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-09-12 18:42 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
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='01c498f8$Blat.v2.2.2$2c6144e0@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