From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19878 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2011 17:01:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 19859 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jul 2011 17:01:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:00:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 15768 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2011 17:00:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Jul 2011 17:00:43 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: x86 watchpoints bug (Re: ping: Re: PATCH : allow to set length of hw watchpoints (e.g. for Valgrind gdbserver)) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:19:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "Philippe Waroquiers" , yao@codesourcery.com References: <201107211712.26443.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107221800.40090.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: 2011-07/txt/msg00629.txt.bz2 On Friday 22 July 2011 17:02:42, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: > > I think nothing else changed in the patch. > > I looked at the new patch and re-tested on f12/x86 and debian5/amd64, using 7.3. > Behaviour looks ok to me regarding the handling of debug registers. Awesome. I've applied it now. > So, in summary: > The following strange behaviours/bugs have still to be fixed or looked at: > * handling of duplicate locations across disabled breakpoints > (resulting in wrongly duplicated z packets and/or missing active debug registers in native) > * watch s1000 then run then disable then enable impossible > > There was also a 'nice to have' which could be looked at: > * ensure that the insertion of watchpoint is done using the order of breakpoints > (so as to not have a new watchpoint causing an error/rejection on a previously accepted > watchpoint). For avoidance of doubt, I'm not working on any of those issues at the moment (and I don't know when/if I will). If you don't plan to, it'll be a good idea to record them in bugzilla. Actually, it'll be a good idea in any case. > Thanks for all the work Thank you! -- Pedro Alves