From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25747 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2013 17:09:08 -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 25730 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2013 17:09:07 -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; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:09:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9TH93GM002812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:09:03 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9TH924R014620; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:09:02 -0400 Message-ID: <526FEBAD.1020108@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:09:00 -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> <52616D4B.3020209@redhat.com> <526FE5E9.3000909@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <526FE5E9.3000909@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00903.txt.bz2 On 10/29/2013 04:44 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > On 18/10/2013 6:18 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 10/18/2013 10:20 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>> @@ -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? > > I used that error message as it matches the one I already added in: > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-10/msg00563.html > but I don't really mind. Whoops, I didn't really pay much attention to the string back then. > Ideally you might want both bits of the error message, you've > turned off H/W watchpoints so you need to be told that read/access > watchpoints are not supported in S/W, but I agree, we should also > let the user know that H/W watchpoints have been turned off and > could be turned back on again. That seems like too much for one > error message though... I'm happy to go with your suggestion. > > Updated patch changes both error messages to match, OK to apply? OK. Thanks! -- Pedro Alves