From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: bauerman@br.ibm.com (Thiago Jung Bauermann)
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org (gdb-patches ml)
Subject: Re: [RFA][branch] Fix DVC calculation for booke ppc
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201104051642.p35Gg0Op012678@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301967654.2511.19.camel@hactar> from "Thiago Jung Bauermann" at Apr 04, 2011 10:40:54 PM
Thiago Jung Bauermann wrotE:
> The bug was introduced by a patch of mine (doh).
> ppc-linux-nat.c:calculate_dvc uses the watchpoint length that is passed
> to target_insert_watchpoint to calculate the contents of the Data Value
> Compare register. The problem is that for the ranged watchpoints feature
> I changed GDB to pass 1 as length if the "set powerpc exact-watchpoints"
> flag is on. This messes up things for calculate_dvc.
>
> This patch makes check_condition obtain the length of the watchpoint
> region from the condition expression, so that it can be passed to
> calculate_dvc. This works because for a condition to be eligible for
> hardware acceleration, it needs to have a strict form:
>
> (gdb) watch ADDRESS|VARIABLE \
> if ADDRESS|VARIABLE == CONSTANT EXPRESSION
>
> which means that the ADDRESS|VARIABLE part is the same as the watchpoint
> region.
Huh. That strikes me as a hack to work around another hack :-/
I may have missed some of the discussion behind the current implementation.
Could you explain again:
- why you're passing an incorrect length of 1 if the "exact watchpoints"
flag is on?
- why you're only supporting hardware-accelerated conditions if the length
is 1?
Note that while you say that the condition needs to have a strict form,
you don't currently actually *verify* this: if you have a command of the
form "watch A if B == C", you only verify that A and B *start* at the
same address -- you really need to also verify that A and B have the
same length -- but you cannot because the length of A is not available
to the target since you're always getting 1 for length.
It seems to me the "right way" would be for the common parts to always
pass correct information (address, length, condition, ...) to the target,
and then for the target to look at the request and choose the best
possible hardware means to implement this particular request ...
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-05 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-05 1:41 Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-05 16:42 ` Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2011-04-05 19:24 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-05 22:51 ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-04-06 3:27 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-15 4:23 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-18 15:30 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-04-18 21:30 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
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=201104051642.p35Gg0Op012678@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com \
--to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
--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