From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20104 invoked by alias); 3 May 2011 18:03:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 20091 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2011 18:03:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,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, 03 May 2011 18:02:57 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LKM00000SO7X700@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 21:02:34 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.185.101]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LKM00LZYSS8X6P0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 03 May 2011 21:02:34 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 18:03:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA 2/3] Demote to sw watchpoint only in update_watchpoint In-reply-to: <201105031841.46949.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, bauerman@br.ibm.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83hb9b4q80.fsf@gnu.org> References: <201104291726.p3THQVaC029608@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <201105031058.44489.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83iptr4tba.fsf@gnu.org> <201105031841.46949.pedro@codesourcery.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: 2011-05/txt/msg00071.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 18:41:46 +0100 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, > bauerman@br.ibm.com, > uweigand@de.ibm.com > > > Or we could let targets which needs that (e.g., those using jtag as > > you described) try inserting the watchpoints to respond to GDB's > > request in target_can_use_hardware_watchpoint. Other targets, which > > can decide that without inserting, would not need to do that. > > > > WDYT? > > The main point/win of the suggestion was avoiding the whole > resource accounting infrastructure, getting away without adding > a bunch of (what looks to me at this point, unnecessary) target > methods/packets/logic. At least for x86, the resource accounting is necessary, because that is what allows us to have several watchpoints sharing the same debug register. Targets that already have this resource accounting may well use it to return accurate results to target_can_use_hardware_watchpoint without actually going to the metal or the kernel.