From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-80757-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1011 invoked by alias); 3 May 2011 16:57:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 995 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2011 16:57:10 -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 16:56:54 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LKM00000PNGAB00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 19:55:53 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.185.101]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LKM00MNYPOYOL90@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 03 May 2011 19:55:47 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 16:57:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA 2/3] Demote to sw watchpoint only in update_watchpoint
In-reply-to: <201105031058.44489.pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, bauerman@br.ibm.com, uweigand@de.ibm.com
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83iptr4tba.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201104291726.p3THQVaC029608@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <1304398546.2245.80.camel@hactar> <E1QH8jn-0001Wm-64@fencepost.gnu.org> <201105031058.44489.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:58:44 +0100
> Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>,
>  uweigand@de.ibm.com
> 
> What if we tried to make GDB do that instead? (try inserting
> watchpoint immediately, instead of trying to do any sort of
> accounting.)

That could work, but won't it get us in trouble, e.g., when there are
other threads running?  They could inadvertently hit those watchpoints
while we are trying to insert them, no?

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?