From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-64174-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19269 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2009 07:12:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 19258 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2009 07:12:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:12:22 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) 	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) 	id 1MC77b-0001Ke-Vo; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:12:20 -0400
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <000001c9e4de$6e550cb0$4aff2610$@u-strasbg.fr> 	(muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr)
Subject: Re: [RFA-v2] Fix a windows bug if two watchpoints are used
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <000301c9e49e$c479eba0$4d6dc2e0$@u-strasbg.fr> <E1MBzlp-0003sy-TM@fencepost.gnu.org> <000601c9e4a3$b2f2f980$18d8ec80$@u-strasbg.fr> <E1MC3RX-0003Di-Hj@fencepost.gnu.org> <000001c9e4de$6e550cb0$4aff2610$@u-strasbg.fr>
Message-Id: <E1MC77b-0001Ke-Vo@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:12:00 -0000
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: 2009-06/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2

> From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> Cc: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 08:33:52 +0200
> Content-Language: en-us
> 
>   Considering the objections to my first patch, I
> here submit another patch that
> make i386_stopped_data_address
> return as soon as one hit is found.

This part is fine with me.

>   The change in I386_DR_DISABLE is still 
> useful for the second test inside the i386_stopped_data_address
> function.

What do we need that for?  Does the Intel spec say that these its need
to be zeroed for disabled debug registers?

>   This patch does fix my windows specific problem.

Is your problem fixed without the change in I386_DR_DISABLE?