From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2101 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2009 11:15:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 2086 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2009 11:15:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com (HELO e28smtp06.in.ibm.com) (59.145.155.6) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:15:37 +0000 Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by e28smtp06.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7OBFXVF023318 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:45:33 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7OBFWGu2129972 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:45:32 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n7OBFWd8011747 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:15:32 +1000 Received: from [9.184.145.59] ([9.184.145.59]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id n7OBFVWu011720; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:15:32 +1000 Message-ID: <4A927651.9040608@in.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:27:00 -0000 From: Chandru User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch]: inform user that a watchpoint is hit References: <200908141602.50465.chandru@in.ibm.com> <4A869488.2060407@in.ibm.com> <4A8BB035.6030601@in.ibm.com> <20090819081532.GA7264@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20090819081532.GA7264@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 Jan Kratochvil wrote: > This is not reproducible for me. > * Which distribution? > * Which exact NVR (name-version-release) of the distribution package? > * The URL http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-08/msg00254.html was > referring to 4 patches, do you have all of them applied? > (but these 4 patches have no effect on this testcase for me, shown as > "archer-jankratochvil-watchpoint" below) > * Please provide both the testcase and complete GDB run screenshot in the same > mail. Once you refer to "rawatch.c", second time "rwatch.c". > When you provide a screenshot refer to all the exact versions and possible > patches applied to it. > * Provide the architecture in use (x86_64? i686? could it be ppc64?). > * Provide even the compiler version used. > * Provide the kernel version in use due to various ptrace syscall bugsin the > past and present (asking primarily for the possibility of ppc64 in use and > the watchpoints on it). > > > Thanks, > Jan > > Hello Jan and Doug, Thanks for your mails. I today downloaded gdb-6.6 and gdb-6.8.50.20090824. gdb-6.6 outputs the messages as follows when the program is restarted Program exited normally. (gdb) r Starting program: /home/chandru/rawatch Hardware read watchpoint 2: value1 Hardware access (read/write) watchpoint 3: value1 Hardware read watchpoint 2: value1 Hardware access (read/write) watchpoint 3: value1 Hardware read watchpoint 2: value1 Hardware access (read/write) watchpoint 3: value1 Breakpoint 1, main () at rawatch.c:20 20 value1 =3; (gdb) whereas gdb-6.8.50.20090824 doesn't. Program exited normally. (gdb) r Starting program: /home/chandru/rawatch Breakpoint 1, main () at rawatch.c:20 20 value1 =3; (gdb) It is not the case that the read or access watchpoints are not being hit. Just the messages like 'Hardware read watchpoint 2: value1' and 'Hardware access (read/write) watchpoint 3: value1' are not shown on the screen when the program is restarted and the condition if (breakpoint_enabled (b)) mention(b); only helped to see those messages. It is only the first occurrence of the watchpoints that the messages don't get displayed for. We could see the messages for later occurrences of the watchpoints on value1. Hence this is just a cosmetic issue and doesn't look like a architecture or a kernel specific issue. Thanks, Chandru