From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-64177-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10678 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2009 10:31:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 10608 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2009 10:31:40 -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 10:31:32 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) 	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) 	id 1MCAEM-0005ix-2I; Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:31:30 -0400
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <000301c9e4e6$b40c5d50$1c2517f0$@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> <E1MC77b-0001Ke-Vo@fencepost.gnu.org> <000301c9e4e6$b40c5d50$1c2517f0$@u-strasbg.fr>
Message-Id: <E1MCAEM-0005ix-2I@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:31:00 -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/msg00064.txt.bz2

> 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?