From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13183 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2009 16:28:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 13168 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Dec 2009 16:28:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:28:01 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AE310826; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:27:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEBB105BF; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:27:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NQNsV-0006dZ-0g; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:27:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tyrlik@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support the new PPC476 processor Message-ID: <20091231162758.GA25407@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , bauerman@br.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tyrlik@us.ibm.com References: <20091230221535.GA25399@caradoc.them.org> <83y6kjdbxj.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83y6kjdbxj.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00469.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 06:06:48AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:15:35 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, > > tyrlik@us.ibm.com > > > > > Thanks for the explanations. I think we should emulate this on > > > architectures that don't have this in hardware (it doesn't sound > > > hard). > > > > How do you mean? It seems basically impossible to me. > > How is it impossible to put several breakpoints covering a range of > addresses? I think ranged breakpoints are typically used with a large range of addresses. For instance, I can imagine using them to cover an entire shared library - say 1MB of code. Also we don't know which part of the range is code and which is data, so using software breakpoints indiscriminately could break the program. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery