From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20289 invoked by alias); 29 May 2003 15:37:20 -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 20225 invoked from network); 29 May 2003 15:37:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 May 2003 15:37:20 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19LPTN-0003ky-00; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:37:45 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19LPSj-0002rJ-00; Thu, 29 May 2003 11:37:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Koning Cc: eliz@elta.co.il, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: proposed PATCH: make watchpoints work correctly Message-ID: <20030529153705.GC10807@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Koning , eliz@elta.co.il, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16086.9378.401730.788367@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00543.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 11:17:54AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "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. I don't know how facile you are with expect, but could you either write a full testcase or at least give me a small sample code and session transcript to reduce the problem, so that this can go into the testsuite? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer