Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com (Pedro Alves)
Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com (Thiago Jung Bauermann),
	eliz@gnu.org (Eli Zaretskii),
	       gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA 2/3] Demote to sw watchpoint only in update_watchpoint
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 11:10:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201105051110.p45BA6Jm013405@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201105050915.18716.pedro@codesourcery.com> from "Pedro Alves" at May 05, 2011 09:15:18 AM

Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 May 2011 23:20:48, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > Pedro's suggestion:
> > 
> > 1. The inferior is stopped and software bp_locations (both breakpoints 
> >    and watchpoints) are removed. Hardware ones stay in place.
> > 2. The user asks for a new watchpoint.
> > 3. GDB evaluates the expression and creates the bp_locations.
> > 4. GDB tries to insert the bp_locations as hw watches. If that fails, 
> >    then converts to sw and registers the watchpoint for insertion.
> > 5. The user asks the inferior to be continued.
> > 6. GDB inserts sw breakpoints and watchpoints and resumes the inferior.
> 
> Either that or try keep hardware breakpoints and watchpoints uninserted,
> and insert them just before 4.  This variant is a bit safer in case GDB crashes,
> but is a bit less efficient in case there are many watchpoints.  But then
> again we already remove/insert them all at each step, so that is kind of moot.
> I've no real preference on which.  This is a minor detail in the grand scheme
> from my perspective.

One thing I'm wondering about is the comment before update_watchpoints:

   Even with `set breakpoint always-inserted on' the watchpoints are
   removed + inserted on each stop here.  Normal breakpoints must
   never be removed because they might be missed by a running thread
   when debugging in non-stop mode.  On the other hand, hardware
   watchpoints (is_hardware_watchpoint; processed here) are specific
   to each LWP since they are stored in each LWP's hardware debug
   registers.  Therefore, such LWP must be stopped first in order to
   be able to modify its hardware watchpoints.
[etc.]

Is this still valid, and would it affect this current discussion if so?

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-05-05 11:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-13 20:55 [RFA] Implement support for PowerPC BookE masked watchpoints Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-01-31 20:09 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-02-17 15:10 ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-04-18 21:22   ` [RFA 2/3] Demote to sw watchpoint only in update_watchpoint Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-29 17:26     ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-05-03  4:56       ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-03  6:05         ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-03  9:58           ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-03 16:57             ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-03 17:41               ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-03 18:03                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-03 18:12                   ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-03 20:30                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-04  0:03                       ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-04  3:07                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-04 22:21                           ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-05  3:09                             ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-05  8:15                             ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-05 10:28                               ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-05 15:27                                 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-05 16:27                                   ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-05 11:10                               ` Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2011-05-05 15:21                                 ` Pedro Alves
2011-05-04 19:12           ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-04 20:31             ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-04 22:22               ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-05 11:04         ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-04-18 21:22   ` [RFA 1/3] Change watchpoint's enable state in do_enable_breakpoint Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-29 17:21     ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-05-04  0:11       ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-18 21:24   ` [RFA 3/3] Implement support for PowerPC BookE masked watchpoints Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-04-29 17:46     ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-05-03  4:56       ` [needs doc review] " Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-03  6:24         ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-05 21:57           ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-06 10:28             ` Eli Zaretskii
2011-05-06 20:35               ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2011-05-05 11:07         ` Ulrich Weigand

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=201105051110.p45BA6Jm013405@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com \
    --to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
    /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