From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21109 invoked by alias); 31 May 2011 17:31:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 21097 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2011 17:31:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:31:02 +0000 Received: (qmail 7424 invoked from network); 31 May 2011 17:31:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 31 May 2011 17:31:02 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: ping: Re: PATCH : allow to set length of hw watchpoints (e.g. for Valgrind gdbserver) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Yao Qi , Tom Tromey , "Philippe Waroquiers" References: <201105271858.53944.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4DE317B1.1040200@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4DE317B1.1040200@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105311830.59328.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00699.txt.bz2 On Monday 30 May 2011 05:06:09, Yao Qi wrote: > > I can't say I understand why was that being proposed in this case? > > What is the patch breaking? > > > > One new command "set remote hardware-watchpoint-length-limit" > is added in the patch, which is only useful to gdbserver+valgrind. > When gdb is talking with normal gdbserver, it may be wrong to set > hardware-watchpoint-length-limit in gdb side. Users should be careful > when using this command. If that was the only problem, than it'd be okay --- the user just shouldn't use the command then. GDB will just do what the user told it to. But, it looks like the patch changes the behavior _even_ if the user doesn't use the command. > The ideal solution, IMO, is remote side gives GDB the value of > hardware-watchpoint-length-limit, however, I don't know it is easy or > hard to do such thing. We've also discussed completely getting rid of watchpoint resources accounting recently. -- Pedro Alves