Re: [RFA]: threaded watchpoint test

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 07:24:31PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:56:19PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> >
> >>+# Watch values that will be modified by distinct threads.
> >>+gdb_test "watch args\[0\]" "Hardware watchpoint 2: args\\\[0\\\]"
> >>+gdb_test "watch args\[1\]" "Hardware watchpoint 3: args\\\[1\\\]"
> >
> >
> >What about platforms without hardware watchpoints?  This test will
> >generate a lot of FAILs in that case.
> >
> 
> I mentioned this both in my original posting and in the test case itself.  
> There is a test for hardware watchpoints and if there are no hardware 
> watchpoints, it returns 0.
> 
> # This test verifies that a watchpoint is detected in the proper thread
> # so the test is only meaningful on a system with hardware watchpoints.
> if [target_info exists gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints] {
>     return 0;
> }

OK.  Unfortunately I don't think this test is conclusive; unix.exp will
always claim to have hardware watchpoints, and on many systems it does
not (for instance powerpc-linux).  If that turns out to be true we can
introduce gdb_has_hardware_watchpoints or something along those lines.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz