From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3222 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2010 18:06:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 3214 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2010 18:06:58 -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; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:06:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D967201D86; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:06:53 -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 2MMhk7jpH1+D; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:06:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC55201D63; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AD04CF595E; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:06:36 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Luis Machado Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Matt Tyrlik Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Support ranged and masked watchpoints Message-ID: <20100112180636.GO2007@adacore.com> References: <200912232231.06331.bauerman@br.ibm.com> <200912311520.36690.bauerman@br.ibm.com> <20100112105942.GL2007@adacore.com> <1263297701.18167.7.camel@gargoyle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1263297701.18167.7.camel@gargoyle> 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/msg00309.txt.bz2 > This would probably depend on the target vector facelift? Yes and no - I don't think it would be fair to refuse the feature just because the current code is not optimal. This is why we should try to find a compromise, where we don't make things worse, if we can. It's not clear to me how to best balance everything, hence the rather lengthy emails... (and perhaps the baby steps! ;-). -- Joel