From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] Implement support for PowerPC BookE ranged watchpoints
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83k4jy6b1k.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1290864315.3009.40.camel@hactar>
> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
> Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
> jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com
> Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 11:25:15 -0200
>
> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 13:10 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > So that's way I created a target_insert_ranged_watchpoint. The other
> > > > option would be to add a flag to target_insert_watchpoint...
> > >
> > > It appears to me that if there should be a new kind of way to
> > > insert watchpoints, it should be to allow setting watchpoints
> > > that only work if the accesses are aligned
> >
> > What would be the use-cases where such behavior would be needed?
>
> In the case of embedded PowerPC processors, that's the only kind of
> watchpoint available using a single watchpoint register.
Okay, but I thought Pedro was suggesting to make such "aligned-access"
watchpoints available on platforms that don't have this limitation. I
was asking why would they be useful on those other platforms.
> To create a "regular" watchpoint in that platform, you need two
> watchpoint registers, from a total of two available in the processor.
Understood. I would then suggest a platform-specific option,
defaulting to OFF, which, when ON, would cause GDB to use 2 registers
for a watchpoint, in order to be able to catch unaligned accesses.
This is under the assumption that most use-cases want to watch
accesses to variables using the right alignment, and that therefore
using 2 registers by default would be a waste of resources that are at
premium on this platform.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-27 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-23 21:52 Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-11-23 23:17 ` Pedro Alves
2010-11-24 21:06 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-11-25 17:32 ` Pedro Alves
2010-11-26 11:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-11-27 13:25 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-11-27 15:28 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2010-11-26 21:15 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-11-27 17:47 ` Pedro Alves
2010-11-27 18:01 ` Pedro Alves
2010-12-09 1:44 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-12-23 19:07 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-12-23 19:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-12-23 20:17 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-12-23 22:18 ` Pedro Alves
2010-12-24 5:10 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-12-25 14:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-12-27 20:18 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-12-28 2:30 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-12-28 5:47 ` Joel Brobecker
2010-12-28 16:42 ` Pedro Alves
2010-12-28 16:10 ` Pedro Alves
2010-12-29 1:00 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2010-11-26 10:59 ` Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83k4jy6b1k.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox