From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1259 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2004 15:26:37 -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 1251 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2004 15:26:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Jul 2004 15:26:36 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1BqCmU-0001t2-Hy; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:25:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Chastain Cc: jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: threaded watchpoint test Message-ID: <20040729152517.GA7192@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Chastain , jjohnstn@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <4106A553.7010202@redhat.com> <20040727230053.GA31203@nevyn.them.org> <4106E42F.3010304@redhat.com> <20040727232634.GA32379@nevyn.them.org> <4106EF7A.nail46S11RRBB@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4106EF7A.nail46S11RRBB@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:12:42PM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote: > > 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. > > Yeah, I'm a bit leery of "set_board_info gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints" > but it already exists (although not used for that purpose). > > I missed something, though: > > if [target_info exists gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints] { > return 0; > } > > Perhaps there should be an UNSUPPORTED in there before the "return 0": > > unsupported "hardware watchpoints on this target" > > Daniel, what do you think? Sounds good to me. We'll probably want to clean up the other bit about using the board_info too; or... just recognize that we got a software watchpoint instead of a hardware one? Maybe not. It could be a bug to get a software watchpoint when we expect a hardware one. The question is whether we want to keep a separate list of "do we expect hardware watchpoints" in the testsuite. -- Daniel Jacobowitz