From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24744 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2010 13:09:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 24710 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2010 13:09:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:09:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8722BABBD; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id z7U59d3d-0p9; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF18F2BAB70; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 08:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2781BF595E; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:08:58 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Wrong hw_watchpoint_used_count? (multiple location watchpoints) Message-ID: <20100108130858.GF29312@adacore.com> References: <20100108075701.GE4589@adacore.com> <83fx6gc43p.fsf@gnu.org> <20100108102955.GC29312@adacore.com> <83aawobxze.fsf@gnu.org> <20100108122555.GD29312@adacore.com> <83zl4oah5f.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83zl4oah5f.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-01/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 > That _is_ the design. However, GDB does not tell enough to the target > for the target to give an accurate answer. And what's more, some > questions cannot be answered without actually trying to call ptrace or > its equivalents, and getting its ``opinion''. Unless we mirror all > the necessary information on the target level that is (which is what > x86 does). Hmmm, so you're saying that the situation on x86 is because we cannot know in advance how many watchpoints the CPU provides? -- Joel