Re: [RFA]: threaded watchpoint test

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 07:24:31PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:56:19PM -0400, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>+# Watch values that will be modified by distinct threads.
>>>>+gdb_test "watch args\[0\]" "Hardware watchpoint 2: args\\\[0\\\]"
>>>>+gdb_test "watch args\[1\]" "Hardware watchpoint 3: args\\\[1\\\]"
>>>
>>>
>>>What about platforms without hardware watchpoints?  This test will
>>>generate a lot of FAILs in that case.
>>>
>>
>>I mentioned this both in my original posting and in the test case itself.  
>>There is a test for hardware watchpoints and if there are no hardware 
>>watchpoints, it returns 0.
>>
>># This test verifies that a watchpoint is detected in the proper thread
>># so the test is only meaningful on a system with hardware watchpoints.
>>if [target_info exists gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints] {
>>    return 0;
>>}
> 
> 
> OK.  Unfortunately I don't think this test is conclusive; unix.exp will
> always claim to have hardware watchpoints, and on many systems it does
> not (for instance powerpc-linux).  If that turns out to be true we can
> introduce gdb_has_hardware_watchpoints or something along those lines.
> 

Ok.  I have just checked in the test.

-- Jeff J.