From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Wrong hw_watchpoint_used_count? (multiple location watchpoints)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100108122555.GD29312@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83aawobxze.fsf@gnu.org>
> The current boundary is the places where breakpoint.c calls the
> various target_* methods which return information that only the target
> knows.
Right - my point is that the design itself is unclear. Your example
of the x86 watchpoint support is one of the examples where this is
particularly weird in terms of user interface, and where the implementation
implements a form of support that is different from what I *thought*
the spirit of watchpoint support in GDB was. I thought that the design
would be that GDB would ask the target if they still have enough
resources to add an extra hardware watchpoint, and automatically
downgrade to a software watchpoint if not. On x86, my guess when
I read the code, is that it won't even allow the user to continue
the debugging until some watchpoints are removed.
> One unpleasant side effect is that we only
> announce at "continue" time that too many hardware resources were
> required; we should have announced that at "watchpoint" time.
Fully agreed.
> In particular, I think that the bookkeeping of the various locations
> where watchpoints are inserted should be left to the target. That
> would allow, e.g., targets that don't support range watchpoints to
> emulate them with multiple watchpoints.
I agree as well.
--
Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-08 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-08 7:57 Joel Brobecker
2010-01-08 9:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-01-08 10:30 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-01-08 12:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-01-08 12:26 ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
2010-01-08 13:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-01-08 13:09 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-01-08 16:49 ` Eli Zaretskii
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=20100108122555.GD29312@adacore.com \
--to=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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