From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25567 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2004 23:41:06 -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 25539 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2004 23:41:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 Jul 2004 23:41:06 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6RNf6e1018256 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:41:06 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6RNf5a13399; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:41:05 -0400 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i6RNf5XP002682; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:41:05 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A739280049A; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4106E80F.5000504@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:41:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: threaded watchpoint test References: <4106A553.7010202@redhat.com> <20040727230053.GA31203@nevyn.them.org> <4106E42F.3010304@redhat.com> <20040727232634.GA32379@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040727232634.GA32379@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00408.txt.bz2 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.