From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18791 invoked by alias); 7 May 2004 08:18:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18707 invoked from network); 7 May 2004 08:18:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2004 08:18:16 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.142.26]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id BSL35365; Fri, 7 May 2004 11:13:06 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 08:18:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Ulrich Weigand Message-Id: <2719-Fri07May2004111234+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: pkoning@equallogic.com, orjan.friberg@axis.com, kettenis@chello.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org In-reply-to: <200405062138.XAA05769@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> (message from Ulrich Weigand on Thu, 6 May 2004 23:38:02 +0200 (CEST)) Subject: Re: Display of read/access watchpoints when HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200405062138.XAA05769@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2 > From: Ulrich Weigand > Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 23:38:02 +0200 (CEST) > > Because a write watchpoints can be handled without hardware support to > provide the address They can be handled to some extent, but once there are complications, like the one that started this thread, the current scheme pretty much collapses.