Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Add hardware watchpoint support for cygwin target.
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:21:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011128193011.GA6502@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8011-Wed28Nov2001201312+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 08:13:12PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:44:44 +0100
>> From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
>> 
>> But te are some annoying things,
>> the most annoying is that an exception seems to be generated
>> on read access of the watched area even if you only set a normal
>> watchpoint (which should use a write-only debug feature).
>
>So you are saying that watch, rwatch, and awatch all yield the same
>behavior?
>
>Are you sure that you pass the watchpoint information correctly to
>the OS?  For example, is the format of DR7 as the OS wants it
>identical to what GDB uses?  The layout of bits in dr_control_mirror
>follows Intel documentation, but the OS might want those bits in a
>different format (that's what the corresponding DPMI call does, for
>example).  I don't have Windows docs, so I cannot check this.
>
>> > /* Get the value of the DR6 debug status register from the inferior.
>> >    Here we just return the value stored in D_REGS, as we've got it
>> >    from the last go32_wait call.  */
>
>I believe you didn't really mean ``go32_wait'' here ;-)

I'd like some clarification on this before I can accept the patch.  It
seems like the described behavior would be annoying indeed.  It would
be nice to fix this.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Add hardware watchpoint support for cygwin target.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:30:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011128193011.GA6502@redhat.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20011128113000.reNn5TPI7zZkEly5Z4sMm6D6o3j587TFPn_zd7PUigs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8011-Wed28Nov2001201312+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 08:13:12PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:44:44 +0100
>> From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
>> 
>> But te are some annoying things,
>> the most annoying is that an exception seems to be generated
>> on read access of the watched area even if you only set a normal
>> watchpoint (which should use a write-only debug feature).
>
>So you are saying that watch, rwatch, and awatch all yield the same
>behavior?
>
>Are you sure that you pass the watchpoint information correctly to
>the OS?  For example, is the format of DR7 as the OS wants it
>identical to what GDB uses?  The layout of bits in dr_control_mirror
>follows Intel documentation, but the OS might want those bits in a
>different format (that's what the corresponding DPMI call does, for
>example).  I don't have Windows docs, so I cannot check this.
>
>> > /* Get the value of the DR6 debug status register from the inferior.
>> >    Here we just return the value stored in D_REGS, as we've got it
>> >    from the last go32_wait call.  */
>
>I believe you didn't really mean ``go32_wait'' here ;-)

I'd like some clarification on this before I can accept the patch.  It
seems like the described behavior would be annoying indeed.  It would
be nice to fix this.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-11-28 19:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-11-17 10:47 Pierre Muller
2001-11-28  9:44 ` Pierre Muller
2001-11-28 10:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-11-17 16:07   ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-11-17 20:21   ` Christopher Faylor [this message]
2001-11-17 22:30     ` muller
2001-11-17 23:01       ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-28 17:27         ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-28 14:31       ` muller
2001-11-19  8:29     ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-11-21 15:15       ` Pierre Muller
2001-11-21 23:08         ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-30  9:04           ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-30  7:11         ` Pierre Muller
2001-11-29  0:12       ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-11-29  0:26       ` Pierre Muller
2001-11-19 11:30         ` Pierre Muller
2001-11-28 11:30     ` Christopher Faylor
2001-12-06  0:37     ` Pierre Muller
2001-12-06 13:30       ` Andrew Cagney
2001-12-07 16:59       ` Christopher Faylor
2001-12-10  2:23         ` Pierre Muller
2001-12-10 11:33           ` Christopher Faylor
2001-12-11  0:15             ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-12-11  1:04               ` Pierre Muller
2001-11-28 13:55   ` muller
2001-11-17 21:08     ` muller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20011128193011.GA6502@redhat.com \
    --to=cgf@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox