From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8247 invoked by alias); 4 May 2011 22:22:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 8239 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2011 22:22:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (HELO e39.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.160) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 May 2011 22:22:28 +0000 Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p44M8dNl016299 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 16:08:39 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p44MMH4g126540 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 16:22:17 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p44MMHAI031348 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 16:22:17 -0600 Received: from [9.12.228.54] ([9.12.228.54]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p44MMEIG031295; Wed, 4 May 2011 16:22:15 -0600 Subject: Re: [RFA 2/3] Demote to sw watchpoint only in update_watchpoint From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <83pqnymcng.fsf@gnu.org> References: <201104291726.p3THQVaC029608@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <1304398546.2245.80.camel@hactar> <1304536344.19357.218.camel@hactar> <83pqnymcng.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 22:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1304547731.19357.232.camel@hactar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 23:30 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann > > Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.coma, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:12:24 -0300 > > > > So the problem is still there. It's not better, but not worse either. > > The output is slightly different because of the better error handling > > this patch introduces. Thus, IMHO overhauling resources handling is not > > a prerequisite or even directly related to this patch (or the next one > > in the series). The acceptance or rejection of this patch is orthogonal > > to that. > > Fair enough. I withdraw my objections to the patch. Thanks! > > Having said that, I agree that it's a shame that GDB can't keep track of > > debug hardware availability, something that one would expect to be among > > the basic tasks of a debugger. So if we can agree on how GDB should deal > > with the problem, I'm willing to work on it on a best effort basis > > (meaning that I wouldn't have much time to dedicate to this, but would > > eventually make progress). > > Thank you. I think Pedro's idea is already on the table, and no one > objected to it. If it is feasible, I'd say let's do it that way. Great. I'll implement it as soon as I make sure I understood it correctly. :-) -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center