From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29953 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2003 04:19:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29941 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2003 04:19:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2003 04:19:50 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (tony08-235-175.inter.net.il [80.230.235.175] (may be forged)) by gandalf.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.5-GR) with ESMTP id ATI62386; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 07:19:40 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 04:19:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: pkoning@equallogic.com Message-Id: <9628-Mon02Jun2003072024+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <16086.9378.401730.788367@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> (message from Paul Koning on Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:54 -0400) Subject: Re: proposed PATCH: make watchpoints work correctly Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <16084.56661.295275.544414@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> <1659-Wed28May2003225524+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <16085.7093.776115.863795@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> <5567-Thu29May2003062838+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <16086.9378.401730.788367@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 11:17:54 -0400 > From: Paul Koning > > Eli> Certainly, I understand that. I just was surprised that your > Eli> description of the problem was so different from my recollection > Eli> of how watchpoints work. > > I just ran a small test case on the x86 Linux native build of gdb 5.3, > and the problem (step works as if it were stepi, falsely reported as a > watchpoint hit) occurs there as well -- just as expected. Thanks, I now see the problem. I think your solution is correct, but I'd like to minimize the number of calls to target_stopped_data_address (they might be expensive). Since the code already does call that function that elsewhere, could we just reuse the result of that call, or rearrange your patch so that a single call would do? Otherwise, I think your change should go in. Thanks.