From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6553 invoked by alias); 29 May 2003 15:17:54 -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 6515 invoked from network); 29 May 2003 15:17:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.equallogic.com) (65.170.102.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 May 2003 15:17:53 -0000 Received: from cygnus.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cygnus.equallogic.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TFHrr01112 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:53 -0400 Received: from deneb.dev.equallogic.com (deneb.dev.equallogic.com [172.16.1.99]) by cygnus.equallogic.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TFHqu01103; Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:52 -0400 Received: from pkoning.dev.equallogic.com.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by deneb.dev.equallogic.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TFHqN18220; Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16086.9378.401730.788367@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:17:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: eliz@elta.co.il Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: proposed PATCH: make watchpoints work correctly References: <16084.56661.295275.544414@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> <1659-Wed28May2003225524+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <16085.7093.776115.863795@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> <5567-Thu29May2003062838+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00540.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 16:27:33 -0400 From: Paul Koning >> >> Eli> The above description made me nervous: it almost sounds like the Eli> current watchpoint support is pretty much dysfunctional, as most Eli> of the changes you suggest are not specific neither to remote.c Eli> nor to HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT. So could you please Eli> explain how, given those deficiencies, watchpoints do work for Eli> native targets such as x86, but did not work for your target? >> I'm not sure. I just built a gdb for x86 on NetBSD, and all I get >> is software write watchpoints, no hardware watch support seems to >> be present. Eli> That's strange: I thought hardware-assisted watchpoints were Eli> supported for all native x86 platforms. Mark, could you please Eli> help us out here? is NetBSD an exception? I built 5.3 for Linux and did the experiment there. Hardware watchpoints do work there. Eli> I don't have time right now to read the parts of breakpoint.c Eli> that you describe, but I promise to do that later today. Thanks Eli> for taking time to explain your reasoning. >> The purpose of this patch submission is to get input from experts >> -- not necessarily to claim that the fix I submitted is the best >> way to solve the problem... Eli> Certainly, I understand that. I just was surprised that your Eli> description of the problem was so different from my recollection Eli> of how watchpoints work. I just ran a small test case on the x86 Linux native build of gdb 5.3, and the problem (step works as if it were stepi, falsely reported as a watchpoint hit) occurs there as well -- just as expected. paul