From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1525 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2001 07:50:30 -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 1504 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2001 07:50:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2001 07:50:27 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA05638; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:49:46 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 23:50:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Michael Snyder cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@science.uva.nl Subject: Re: [RFC] Possible bug with i386 watchpoints on several targets. In-Reply-To: <1858-Fri30Nov2001214802+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, I wrote: > The reason that hardware watchpoints are only considered to fire when > the watched value changes is that hardware watchpoints are treated teh > same as software watchpoints, and software watchpoints obviously > cannot fire unless the watched value changes. > > I think it is fundamentally wrong to treat hardware and software > watchpoints in a similar way. I think hardware watchpoints should be > treated like read and access watchpoints, not like software > watchpoints. If others (mainly Michael Snyder) agree, I will submit a > patch that will make that change, and will also solve this particular > problem raised by Pierre. Michael, did you read this part of my message? If so, do you agree with the principle? If you do, I'd like to write a patch that will fix this.