Re: [PRELIMINARY]: Patch to add bfd support for IBM s390

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1834 bytes --]

> From: DJBARROW@de.ibm.com
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:45:32 +0200
> 
> The breakpoint.c kludge I did as far as I remember is probably
> unwanted, I just found that the hardware breakpoints in 4-18 were in
> absolutely terrible shape staying in when not wanted & disappearing
> for no reason, has this code improved ?

I think that watchpoint-related code in GDB improved _a lot_ since
v4.18, but I'm not sure how relevant these improvements are for the
S/390 port.  The watchpoint support is certainly much better for
x86-based targets, one of which I maintain.

If you can describe in more detail what problems did you see in v4.18,
it will be possible to tell you which problems are now resolved.
From DJBARROW@de.ibm.com Fri Aug 25 04:58:00 2000
From: DJBARROW@de.ibm.com
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, nickc@cygnus.com, Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PRELIMINARY]: Patch to add bfd support for IBM s390
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 04:58:00 -0000
Message-id: <C1256946.0041A357.00@d12mta09.de.ibm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-08/msg00313.html
Content-length: 706

If this code has improved my kludges are probably obselete.
To be honest it was a long time ago, it was primarily to do with
watchpoints set up in hw being
inconsistent with what info watchpoints said was active.

e.g. The watchpoint code cleaned the hardware breakpoints in the next run
while info watchpoints
still reported watchpoints active ( this kind of stuff ), unfortunately I
cant remember exactly just cast
asparagus.

 I'll do some testing over the next few days & if it still looks unhealthy
I'll start complaining.

D.J. Barrow Linux for S/390 kernel developer
eMail: djbarrow@de.ibm.com,barrow_dj@yahoo.com
Phone: +49-(0)7031-16-2583
IBM Germany Lab, Schönaicherstr. 220, 71032 Böblingen