From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17138 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2004 14:28:36 -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 17131 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 14:28:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 14:28:36 -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 i88ESaS2023186 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:28:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i88ESU308581; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:28:30 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162B328D2; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:28:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <413F170A.2070005@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS References: <413B1435.3020102@gnu.org> <01c493ce$Blat.v2.2.2$e86fbec0@zahav.net.il> <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$Blat.v2.2.2$ead61420@zahav.net.il> <413E25F6.7020908@gnu.org> <01c49557$Blat.v2.2.2$23f700a0@zahav.net.il> In-Reply-To: <01c49557$Blat.v2.2.2$23f700a0@zahav.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2 >>> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:19:50 -0400 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >>> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com >>> >>> For the non-native case, as I initially indicated and as an examination >>> of the code reveals, this macro is never used! Consequently I've in no >>> way motified or altered GDB's ``hardware watchpoints'' feature on those >>> targets. > > > Yes, you have: your patch, when checked in, will leave no way to build > a port for a target that has no hardware watchpoint support. Can you give an example - a target with no watchpoint support that no longer builds due to my patch? Andrew