From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22444 invoked by alias); 3 May 2011 06:24:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 22423 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2011 06:24:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Tue, 03 May 2011 06:23:48 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QH91Q-00028x-77; Tue, 03 May 2011 02:23:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 06:24:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Thiago Jung Bauermann CC: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <1304398554.2245.81.camel@hactar> (message from Thiago Jung Bauermann on Tue, 03 May 2011 01:55:54 -0300) Subject: Re: [needs doc review] Re: [RFA 3/3] Implement support for PowerPC BookE masked watchpoints Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <201104291745.p3THjh0k030472@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <1304398554.2245.81.camel@hactar> 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann > Cc: gdb-patches ml > Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 01:55:54 -0300 > > The @code{@r{[}mask @var{maskvalue}@r{]}} argument allows creation > of masked watchpoints, if the current architecture supports this > feature. (Currently, this is only available on PowerPC Embedded > architecture, see @ref{PowerPC Embedded}.) Specifying a mask argument > implies the @code{-location} argument. I would prefer to avoid text in the manual that could easily become obsolete tomorrow: we don't have any efficient mechanism in place to tell us to revise such text. So instead of (Currently, this is only available on PowerPC Embedded architecture, see @ref{PowerPC Embedded}.) I would prefer either to say nothing, or use a more vague phrase, without the too-decisive "currently, available only on...". Like this, for example: The @code{@r{[}mask @var{maskvalue}@r{]}} argument allows creation of masked watchpoints, if the current architecture supports this feature (e.g., PowerPC Embedded architecture, see @ref{PowerPC Embedded}.) > A @dfn{masked watchpoint} specifies a mask in addition to an address > to watch. The mask specifies that some bits of an address (the bits > which are reset in the mask) should be ignored when matching the > address accessed by the inferior against the watchpoint address. > Thus, a masked watchpoint watches many addresses > simultaneously---those addresses whose unmasked bits are identical > to the unmasked bits in the watchpoint address. > > became > > A @dfn{masked watchpoint} specifies a mask in addition to an address > to watch. The @code{mask} argument implies the @code{-location} > argument, which means that the expression will be resolved to a memory > address at watchpoint creation time (@pxref{Set Watchpoints}.) What do you mean by "implies"? Do you mean that -location must be specified if "mask" is specified? If so, "implies" is not a good word. I also don't really understand the part about "resolving to a memory address at watchpoint creation time". What were you trying to say? Thanks.