From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32388 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2004 15:23:15 -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 32381 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 15:23:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 15:23:14 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C54Hz-0007XK-3E; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:23:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS Message-ID: <20040908152315.GA28927@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <413B1435.3020102@gnu.org> <01c493ce$Blat.v2.2.2$e86fbec0@zahav.net.il> <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$Blat.v2.2.2$ead61420@zahav.net.il> <413E25F6.7020908@gnu.org> <01c49557$Blat.v2.2.2$23f700a0@zahav.net.il> <413F170A.2070005@gnu.org> <01c495b7$Blat.v2.2.2$1f83c660@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c495b7$Blat.v2.2.2$1f83c660@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 06:17:38PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:28:26 -0400 > > From: Andrew Cagney > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > Can you give an example - a target with no watchpoint support that no > > longer builds due to my patch? > > I don't think it is my job to find such a target. Rather, it is up to > you to prove that no target will ever need that. > > Anyway, I don't think this kind of approach to our argument is > productive. I suggest that we instead concentrate on finding an > alternative machinery to compute TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS at > configure time. > > How about this: for a cross-compiled build or for remote targets, add > a switch to the configure script, say --without-hw-watchpoints, that > will set TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS so as to disable hardware > watchpoint support; for native and non-cross builds, add an autoconf > test that will do that automatically? Why should the macro matter for remote targets? We should ask the target whether watchpoints are available. For cross-compiled build, autoconf should work just fine. Compile tests are still available and you shouldn't be using run tests for this sort of thing anyway. -- Daniel Jacobowitz