From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2534 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2003 14:51:03 -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 2465 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2003 14:51:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.equallogic.com) (65.170.102.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2003 14:51:02 -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 h54Ep2r30308 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:51:02 -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 h54Ep1u30299; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:51:01 -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 h54Ep0202025; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:51:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16094.1875.627783.473299@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:51:00 -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> <16086.9378.401730.788367@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> <9628-Mon02Jun2003072024+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:54 -0400 From: Paul Koning >> >> 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. Eli> Thanks, I now see the problem. Eli> I think your solution is correct, but I'd like to minimize the Eli> number of calls to target_stopped_data_address (they might be Eli> expensive). Since the code already does call that function that Eli> elsewhere, could we just reuse the result of that call, or Eli> rearrange your patch so that a single call would do? Eli> Otherwise, I think your change should go in. Thanks. Thanks. I'll look at the rearranging you suggested. paul