From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27119 invoked by alias); 4 May 2011 03:07:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 27109 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2011 03:07:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 May 2011 03:07:37 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LKN00700HWUK300@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 06:06:45 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.232.26]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LKN007F3HZ74870@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 04 May 2011 06:06:45 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 03:07:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA 2/3] Demote to sw watchpoint only in update_watchpoint In-reply-to: <1304467386.19357.4.camel@hactar> To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83d3jz4110.fsf@gnu.org> References: <201104291726.p3THQVaC029608@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <201105031841.46949.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83hb9b4q80.fsf@gnu.org> <201105031912.43042.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83fwov4jem.fsf@gnu.org> <1304467386.19357.4.camel@hactar> 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/msg00082.txt.bz2 > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann > Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, > uweigand@de.ibm.com > Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 21:03:06 -0300 > > On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 23:29 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Pedro Alves > > > Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 19:12:42 +0100 > > > Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, > > > uweigand@de.ibm.com > > > > > > I'm proposing getting rid of target_can_use_hardware_watchpoint > > > as being part of the core accounting infrastructure. > > > > I'm fine with heading that way. It will certainly be cleaner than the > > current mess, which needs a face-lift every few months. > > For this scheme to work, GDB will have to be changed to use > always-inserted mode exclusively, right? Or at least insert all > breakpoints and watchpoints when probing whether a new > breakpoint/watchpoint can be created. I think what Pedro suggests can (and should) work only for hardware watchpoints and breakpoints. Normal breakpoints and watchpoints cannot work that way, they must be inserted at "resume" time. So I think always-inserted mode is not the right way here, unless I'm missing something.