From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1598 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2013 17:18:10 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1584 invoked by uid 89); 18 Oct 2013 17:18:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:18:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9IHI68j029009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:18:07 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9IHI4Jb031472; Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:18:05 -0400 Message-ID: <52616D4B.3020209@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:18:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Burgess CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Extra error message from update_watchpoint References: <5260FD66.7090506@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <5260FD66.7090506@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00577.txt.bz2 On 10/18/2013 10:20 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > While working on this: > URL :-) > @@ -1946,8 +1946,13 @@ update_watchpoint (struct watchpoint *b, int reparse) > } > } > else if (!b->base.ops->works_in_software_mode (&b->base)) > - error (_("Expression cannot be implemented with " > - "read/access watchpoint.")); > + { > + if (!can_use_hw_watchpoints) > + error (_("Software read/access watchpoints not supported.")); Hmm, is this really "not supported", or rather "explicitly disabled"? I think I'd prefer: error (_("Hardware watchpoints support disabled. " "See set/show can-use-hw-watchpoints.")); which also hints towards the toggle. WDYT? -- Pedro Alves