Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [ppc-linux-nat]: set access flag for h/w watchpoint even if it 	is  only read or write
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:18:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060707131754.GB20201@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <u7j2prarv.fsf@gnu.org>

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:04:36PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I think the reason it works for me is that on x86, there's no real
> support for read watchpoints, so we actually set a read-write
> watchpoint, and then the logic of watchpoint_check does TRT.

Precisely.

> The question is, how to do that without breaking other platforms, like
> x86, which we cannot trust.  If you can come up with a design that
> accommodates both types of situations, I will be happy to review it.
> 
> Daniel, could you please point me to Ulrich's change, either in
> ChangeLogs or in the sources?  I cannot find it forf some reason.

I must be mistaken; our S/390 support doesn't have any read watchpoints
(I don't know if the architecture does or not).  In fact I can't find
any architecture that does this.  But I immediately recognized
the description of the problem... so it must have happened somewhere.

I can't find the discussion of it, but the gdbserver crisv32 port does
the same thing:

  /* Read watchpoints are set as access watchpoints, because of GDB's
     inability to deal with pure read watchpoints.  */
  if (type == '3')
    type = '4';

Here's some more about it:
  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2005-11/msg00231.html

In which I also claimed S/390 did it, which doesn't appear to be true,
but at least I've had the same misconception for a while now.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery


  reply	other threads:[~2006-07-07 13:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-07-07  4:35 Wu Zhou
2006-07-07 10:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-07-07 13:18   ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2006-07-07 15:08     ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-07-08 19:36       ` Ulrich Weigand
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-06-09 15:40 Wu Zhou
2006-07-06 13:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-07-06 20:59   ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-07-06 21:37     ` Daniel Jacobowitz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060707131754.GB20201@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@false.org \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=woodzltc@cn.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox