From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5197 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2014 12:48:19 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5166 invoked by uid 89); 16 Sep 2014 12:48:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:48:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7231162A1; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:48:15 -0400 (EDT) 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 aCDJ2aLq4Wkz; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466F111626C; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8918A40E17; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:48:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Luis Machado Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] arm-tdep.c: Do not single-step after hitting a watchpoint. Message-ID: <20140916124814.GO4871@adacore.com> References: <1410786062-19274-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <87bnqf2578.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20140916115936.GM4871@adacore.com> <5418279A.1040604@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5418279A.1040604@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00533.txt.bz2 > >I think the experiments that were run showed that QEMU is in fact > >correct and should NOT be changed. > > Do we know what the Linux kernel's behavior on this one is? I wonder > what the stopped data address shows. > > Someone with access to a board with a relatively new kernel could > try that and rule it out, otherwise we risk fixing something for > QEMU/bare metal and breaking things for Linux. When I tested on GNU/Linux, watchpoints simply did not work (silently ignored, no signal). I was using an old kernel (2012), though; but that's all I had access to. But, all in all, baremetal should be our most reliable source of info, though,no? - no software layer to murky the waters. -- Joel