From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27024 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2004 15:53:22 -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 26976 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2004 15:53:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2004 15:53:20 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7446B2B92; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:53:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <404750EC.6090405@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:53:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kei Sakamoto Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: No set_gdbarch_* functions for hardware watchpoints References: <012c01c401cc$40c9ce20$5169910a@E5A02646> In-Reply-To: <012c01c401cc$40c9ce20$5169910a@E5A02646> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00074.txt > Hello, > > I'm implementing hardware watchpoints for m32r target and > I found that there was no set_gdbarch_* functions for hardware > watchpoints. > > I can use macros instead of set_gdbarch_* functions like other > targets, but it means m32r target becomes MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL. > I don't think it's a good implementation. > > Would anyone add set_gdbarch_* functions for hardware watchpoints? Check the target vector [target.h] many of of the watchpoint operations are implemented there - this is because watchpoints often have target dependant semantics. In terms of adding target/architecture methods. Its probably useful to go over old discussions. The bug database (of all places) has entries, for instance: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=967 which leads to the thread: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-09/msg00739.html (there are a number of threads from that time period). Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27024 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2004 15:53:22 -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 26976 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2004 15:53:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2004 15:53:20 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7446B2B92; Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:53:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <404750EC.6090405@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kei Sakamoto Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: No set_gdbarch_* functions for hardware watchpoints References: <012c01c401cc$40c9ce20$5169910a@E5A02646> In-Reply-To: <012c01c401cc$40c9ce20$5169910a@E5A02646> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.SuucQEL3ieTH92IJ6nsyRzAV8aq4hy5KgTQCSg5DfZ4@z> > Hello, > > I'm implementing hardware watchpoints for m32r target and > I found that there was no set_gdbarch_* functions for hardware > watchpoints. > > I can use macros instead of set_gdbarch_* functions like other > targets, but it means m32r target becomes MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL. > I don't think it's a good implementation. > > Would anyone add set_gdbarch_* functions for hardware watchpoints? Check the target vector [target.h] many of of the watchpoint operations are implemented there - this is because watchpoints often have target dependant semantics. In terms of adding target/architecture methods. Its probably useful to go over old discussions. The bug database (of all places) has entries, for instance: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=967 which leads to the thread: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-09/msg00739.html (there are a number of threads from that time period). Andrew