From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5213 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2009 19:20:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5205 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2009 19:20:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:19:01 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KT900000PEBLA00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:18:02 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.70.37.193]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KT900MXUPM19H40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:18:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:20:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Fix hw watchpoints #2: reordered / simultaneously hit In-reply-to: <20091117141139.GA5266@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83einxm041.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20091116034156.GD22701@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20091117001056.GE4557@adacore.com> <83k4xpn6hz.fsf@gnu.org> <20091117141139.GA5266@adacore.com> 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:11:39 -0500 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > ??? Why? What's wrong with bitfields that we should avoid them? > > It makes access to the field more difficult and require more instructions. On what architectures will the performance hit be significant enough to bother?