From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA-v2] Fix a windows bug if two watchpoints are used
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:31:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1MCAEM-0005ix-2I@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000301c9e4e6$b40c5d50$1c2517f0$@u-strasbg.fr> (muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr)
> From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> Cc: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:33:06 +0200
> Content-Language: en-us
>
> My problem is indeed fixed without that part,
> but without my change to I386_DR_DISABLE, the second check
> in i386_stopped_data_address:
>
> ALL_DEBUG_REGISTERS(i)
> {
> if (I386_DR_WATCH_HIT (i)
> /* This second condition makes sure DRi is set up for a data
> watchpoint, not a hardware breakpoint. The reason is
> that GDB doesn't call the target_stopped_data_address
> method except for data watchpoints. In other words, I'm
> being paranoiac. */
> && I386_DR_GET_RW_LEN (i) != 0)
>
> is not reliable as the return value of I386_DR_GET_RW_LEN (i)
> is non-zero if I was used before... Even if it was disabled
> later!
This is C: if the result of the first test is false, the result of the
second test is not important, right?
Or am I missing something?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-04 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-03 22:58 [RFA] " Pierre Muller
2009-06-03 23:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-06-03 23:33 ` Pierre Muller
2009-06-04 3:16 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-06-04 3:29 ` Christopher Faylor
2009-06-04 6:34 ` [RFA-v2] " Pierre Muller
2009-06-04 7:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-06-04 7:33 ` Pierre Muller
2009-06-04 10:31 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2009-06-04 14:52 ` Pierre Muller
2009-06-04 15:22 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-06-16 22:43 ` [PING][RFA-v2] " Pierre Muller
2009-06-22 20:56 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-06-23 1:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-09-22 12:55 ` [RFA-v3] " Pierre Muller
2009-09-24 3:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-09-24 17:54 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-09-24 22:08 ` Pierre Muller
2009-09-25 1:53 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-09-25 15:32 ` Pierre Muller
2009-09-25 16:07 ` Joel Brobecker
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=E1MCAEM-0005ix-2I@fencepost.gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr \
/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