From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8889 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2004 18:42:55 -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 8882 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2004 18:42:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Sep 2004 18:42:54 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-197-237.inter.net.il [80.230.197.237]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CNT09079 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:42:11 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:42:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c498f8$Blat.v2.2.2$2c6144e0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <414479DB.4090207@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:31:23 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$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$eb2d05a0@zahav.net.il> <20040909124755.GA8559@nevyn.them.org> <01c4969e$Blat.v2.2.2$0e5a13c0@zahav.net.il> <414479DB.4090207@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:31:23 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , 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.