From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4192 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2006 17:26:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 4184 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2006 17:26:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:26:43 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FlqwR-0006ia-I1; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:26:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Nathan Sidwell , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: patch for invalid hw breakpoints Message-ID: <20060601172639.GA25709@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Nathan Sidwell , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <447EE9A8.4050800@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:17:48PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > [Patches should be sent to gdb-patches,; I redirected the thread.] > > > Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:20:40 +0100 > > From: Nathan Sidwell > > > > I have a remote target w/o hw watchpoint support. I set a watchpoint only to > > find that I then get an undeletable watchpoint as we try and remove it. > > > > The bug is that when insert_bp_location fails to insert one of the watched > > addresses for a watch expression it then goes and tries to remove all the > > addresses of that watched expression, rather than just the previous fragments of > > the expression. > > And why is that a problem? I'm sorry, but I couldn't figure out from > your description why removing a watch for an expression for which > insertion didn't happen causes trouble. IIRC, it is supposed to > silently fail, and its only effect should be to cause GDB to be happy > that the watchpoint was completely removed. What am I missing? It caused trouble for a remote stub. If I remember Nathan's example right, we sent out packets like this: -> Z02,1111110 <- E01 -> z02,1111110 We're asking the stub to remove something that isn't inserted. The protocol documentation isn't clear on whether stubs have to support this... but it didn't say that they did, and at least one didn't. Nathan, have I got that right? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery