From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2400 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2003 04:15:46 -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 2392 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2003 04:15:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 2003 04:15:43 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19WTc7-00081O-00; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:16:31 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19WTb7-0005eU-00; Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:15:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 04:15:00 -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: <20030629041529.GA19983@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> <9628-Mon02Jun2003072024+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <16094.1875.627783.473299@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16094.1875.627783.473299@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00855.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "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. Sorting through my TODO list I found your test code for this issue; did you ever finish the patch? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer