From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6712 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 13:36:14 -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 6689 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 13:36:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO miranda.se.axis.com) (193.13.178.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 13:36:09 -0000 Received: from axis.com (ironmaiden.se.axis.com [10.13.8.120]) by miranda.se.axis.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian) with ESMTP id h98Da1d0031391; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:36:01 +0200 Message-ID: <3F8412C1.8090908@axis.com> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:36:00 -0000 From: Orjan Friberg Organization: Axis Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Display of read/access watchpoints when HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00205.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Perhaps none of the targets that support hardware read and access > watchpoints define HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT? Yes, that seems to be the case. > Anyway, from your description, it is quite clear that if a target > defines HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT, GDB must call > target_stopped_data_address before it disables the watchpoint and > steps over it, or else the target end should store the necessary info > somewhere and deliver it when target_stopped_data_address is called. Right. I was thinking I could make watchpoints "steppable" by disabling them in the remote stub when a watchpoint hits, and then enabling them again when a continue is issued, but it feels like that might create more problems than it solves. (For example, watchpoints would never hit when single-stepping.) I'll see if I can understand enough of handle_inferior_event to whip up a patch for either of your suggestions. Thanks for your answer. -- Orjan Friberg Axis Communications