From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15664 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2004 03:53:35 -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 15657 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 03:53:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 03:53:34 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C5G09-0007sM-A4; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:53:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS Message-ID: <20040909035336.GA30215@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , cagney@gnu.org, 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$1f83c660@zahav.net.il> <20040908152315.GA28927@nevyn.them.org> <01c4961e$Blat.v2.2.2$d00fd3e0@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4961e$Blat.v2.2.2$d00fd3e0@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:39:52AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:23:15 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > Why should the macro matter for remote targets? We should ask the > > target whether watchpoints are available. > > So you are suggesting to replace a configure-time test and the macro > with a run-time test? There are already some runtime tests for this. I don't know how well they all work, but I thought they did. I never implemented watchpoints for gdbserver, so I never tried them. > > > 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. > > I don't think this kind of test can be done by compiling a program, > but if you have a specific test in mind, please describe it. > > In any case, if what you suggest works, I agree to replacing the macro > with these alternatives. There are two cases: - If we enabled support, GDB could not be compiled. This is amenable to compile tests. - If we enabled support, it would not work at runtime. This is amenable only to runtime tests - either run during configure or run during execution. I strongly believe the former are wrong in all but exceptional cases. -- Daniel Jacobowitz