From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4934 invoked by alias); 30 May 2011 04:06:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 4919 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2011 04:06:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 May 2011 04:06:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 23412 invoked from network); 30 May 2011 04:06:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.102?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 30 May 2011 04:06:20 -0000 Message-ID: <4DE317B1.1040200@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 04:06:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: ping: Re: PATCH : allow to set length of hw watchpoints (e.g. for Valgrind gdbserver) References: <4DDF196F.5010202@codesourcery.com> <201105271858.53944.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201105271858.53944.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00670.txt.bz2 On 05/28/2011 01:58 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Friday 27 May 2011 18:53:19, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: >> >> Yao> Maybe, we need a new target `remote-valgrind' here, and move your >> Yao> stuff there. >> >> We discussed this a bit (last year?), but Pedro was against adding a new >> target. I don't recall why; I would like to know though. > > It was in a different context (some target where endianess matters > depending on whether you're reading code or something else), but the > reasons are the same. There's no need for one, and it adds to > user confusion, and IDE complication. If the remote target needs > to behave differently against some remote stub, that calls > for the remote end giving gdb enough information for gdb to > adjust itself automatically. > Yes, I agree. > I can't say I understand why was that being proposed in this case? > What is the patch breaking? > One new command "set remote hardware-watchpoint-length-limit" is added in the patch, which is only useful to gdbserver+valgrind. When gdb is talking with normal gdbserver, it may be wrong to set hardware-watchpoint-length-limit in gdb side. Users should be careful when using this command. The ideal solution, IMO, is remote side gives GDB the value of hardware-watchpoint-length-limit, however, I don't know it is easy or hard to do such thing. -- Yao (齐尧)