From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 385 invoked by alias); 12 May 2009 15:17:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 375 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2009 15:17:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 May 2009 15:17:00 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KJJ00F00EAJVG00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 12 May 2009 18:16:00 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.73.80]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KJJ003GCEEN8J60@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Tue, 12 May 2009 18:16:00 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:17:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove i386 low level debug register function from nm- header file. In-reply-to: <200905121500.n4CF0Z1B016661@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83octyxsgb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <200905121500.n4CF0Z1B016661@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.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: 2009-05/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:00:35 +0200 (CEST) > From: "Ulrich Weigand" > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com ('Pedro Alves'), > eliz@gnu.org ('Eli Zaretskii') > > > > I think you should provide everything in i386-nat.c (and > > > the new i386-nat.h) unconditionally, and eliminate the > > > various definitions of I386_USE_GENERIC_WATCHPOINTS in the > > > nm- header files. > > > > The only drawback is that "maint show-debug--regs" command > > will then also appear on target that do not support > > debug registers... Anyhow, it will just be a no-op in that case. > > Is that a problem? > > I don't think so. The command simply says: "whenever the hardware > debug registers are changed, display their contents". Being able > to set that flag on a system that happens to never use hardware > debug register should be fine, the condition just never occurs. I'd rather we displayed an error message when this command is used on platforms where it has no effect. Silently doing nothing is not a good UI. But that's me.